ELECTION METHOD

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 230, 24 June 1932, Page 12

ELECTION METHOD

Dairy Control Board NOT TO BE ALTERED ■ Conference’s Decision Dominion Special Service. Palmerston North, June 23. Recommendations involving radical alterations in the present method of electing the Dairy Produce Control Board, w’hich were contained in a report of the special committee set up twelve months ago to devise proposals for the better internal administration of the dairying industry, were rejected by the National Dairy Conference at Palmerstoii North this afternoon. In its original report, which was published in yesterday’s “Dominion,” the committee recommended that the Dairy Board should be elected on the college system in much the same way as the Meat Producers’ Board.

When consideration of the recommendations was resumed this afternoon it was announced that the committee now wished to delete from its report the proposal in connection with the college system and in its place recommend that members of the Dairy Board in the respective wards be elected on a tonnage vote by directors of dairy companies in those wards. Even in its amended form there was considerable objection to the proposals of the committee, on the ground that they would deprive the individual producer of his present right to vote. After ar-guments-both for and against the recommendations the adoption of the report was lost by 116 votes to 96, the voting being taken on 'the tonnage basis.

“Some Administrative Head.”

The chairman of the committee, Mr. F. H. Anderson, of Cambridge, who moved the adoption of the report, said that since the presentation of the report on Tuesday the committee had met, and in order to be unanimous had amended the original proposals. Sooner or later, he said, there would have to be some administrative head of the dairying industry. It was an impossible position to carry on under Government- control as in the past. There had been no fewer than three Ministers of Agriculture during the past year. Both the Dairy Board and Dairy Division were essential, and if placed on a sound foundation there would be no,friction. The first thing to do was to alter the system of election.

The adoption of the report was seconded by Mr. B. Roberts, of Parkdale, who said it was important for the industry to formulate suitable machinery to deal with problems facing it. There was an urgent necessity for the internal Control proposed in the report. Force of circumstances had compelled the board to take an increased interest in the administration of the industry, and it was now proposed to give it that constitutional authority it had not formerly possessed.. They wanted to establish a board to function not only for the dairy industry and its individual factories, but producers who were up against it. They were endeavouring to go step by step toward perfecting the machinery of the organisation for the welfare of the whole in-: dustry. Right Challenged.

Mr. J. Hine, of. Tikorangi, said the report referred to the alleged lack of co-ordination' in units of the industry and its removal from the arena of politics, and suggested that the dairy division should be made subservient to the Dairy Board. He challenged the right of.. the committee or the conference to disfranchise the supplier. He challenged whether any delegate present had the mandate to take away the supplier’s vote. Under the council system once a member was elected they could not get rid of him. The committee was prepared to grant the producer one right only, and that was to nominate a member of the Dairy Board but have no right to vote. Mr. J. G. Brechin, of Pahiatua, said that Mr. Hine had simply endeavoured to cloud the issue in the report. They had a proposal that meant nonpolitical control of their own business. In every election for the Dairy Board it had been illustrated how much interest producers took in that direction. The chairman of directors of the New Zealand Co-operative Dairy Co., Mr. Dynes Fulton, of Hamilton, .opposed the report, What had the Dairy Division done that' it should not have done? he asked. The Dairy Division Worked in perfect harmony with the Dairy Board.

Information as to why the report had been circulated to factories and then amended after the commencement of the conference was sought by Mr. Harker, of Wairoa. It seemed to him as if members of the committee had gone around among members of the conference to find out their attitude to tjie report. That sort of tiling savoured of lobbying. When the committee had realised the report was going to be defeated it deleted the most objectionable part. Mr. Anderson briefly replied to the arguments used by the opponents of the recommendations. The committee had no desire to take away from the Diiector of Wie Dairy Division any rights he possessed so far as the dairy farm instruction and inspection of the produce was concerned. The motion for the adoption of the report was then lost. The conference concluded with a resolution extending good wishes to Mr. Goodfellow and wishing him success in the mission to Ottawa on behalf of the producers.