DAIRY CONTROL BOARD.

Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 30 March 1926, Page 4

DAIRY CONTROL BOARD.

AIFfTHOD OF ELECTION /

TARANAKI FEDERATION MS-

CESSION

EXPORT TONNAGE BASIS FAVOURED.

The principal business discussed at a. largely-attended meeting held yesterday at the A. and P. Association.’s rooms of representatives of dairy companies, members of the Taranaki Federation, was that- of the Dairy Control Board and its methods of election. After very considerable discussion, -it was decided to recommend to the conference to be held on April 28 a- basis of voting for election on export tonnage only, and that it should -be compulsory for sha-reho'iders of companies to be called together to decide the x mainier in which the vote of the company should be exercised. Mr T. A. Winks, chairman of the federation, presided, and in introducing the matter, said that the opinion of producers was strongly in favour of tb e ward system. The Minister of Agriculture had requested the., boa id to -take charge of the conference called for April, and it was necessary for the federation of companies to decide what attitude it should adopt. The federation had originally decided to adopt the sub-committee’s recommendations. The "arrangements made by the- board -for the conference were that -each, dairy company, whether co-operative or proprietary. was entitled to lie represented. either by individual or by proxy, and the basis of voting was to- be a-s decided in 1922, one vote for every 100 tons of butter up to 500 tons, and an additional vote for every further 150 tons of butter (2 tons of-cheese to be taken as equal to one of butter). This would serve to show what was in the board’s mind on the matter. The present meeting had to consider the question and adopt recommendations for submission to the conference.

Mr R. Free (M-anga-toki) said be approved of the ward system—six for the North Island -and three for the South. He could see no reason why there should not be one vot e for each district, and that it would increase interest, in the matter of voting. He moved -that it be ,a- recommendation to have, as suggested, six wards in the North Island and three in the South. In reply to Air Lees, the chairman said that in the federation it was laid down that the voting power .was one for each £1 of subscription paid. Mr J. .Marx said that they were actually -ahead of themselves and- that the power rested with the individual .producer. The whole- of the vital questions under discussion to--day were dependent on the- meeting in Wellington -on April 28. . The first thing to do was to get a mandate, and for this they must call meetings, because until that was done no company was qualified. The big matter for the companies was to . get a vote to obtain a referendum re absolute control.

A motion was moved -by * him “That it be a- recommendation to -the federation to- get- companies to call the suppliers together to- submit the questioh to suppliers and forward resolutions to -the conference,” -but it lapsed for want of a- seconder. He contended that the position was different to what it was in 1922. The chairman said that the best method was to- refer hack to the companies and get an opinion in regard to the- election, but- he considered the federation should give them a -lead, and then they could be called together and their -opinion taken. Air Alarx said they shouhl speak through the suppliers, and there would be no difficulty in getting a vote of the companies. The chairman said the federation would enable them to put the position much more clearly. In reply to Air Cocker, he added that delegates from companies" to the federation meetings had oiUy power to move resolutions and only -one to vote. Two or -more could be sent to speak, but there would be only one vote for each company, according to- the -subscription paid. The delegate might b e a- direotor or supplier. Individual companies bad the right to send dele-fat-e.s to the forthcoming conference at Wellington. Any resolutions here were onlv a- recommendation to, the companies. Air Forsyth said the meeting could send recommendations to Wellington, but each company would rita-ve delegates on an output basis. Referring to the districts., tbe- chairman said that the country was fairly well bound together in common interests. -

Mr Gane said the representation was drawn out on a tonnage, not a. boundary basis. Mr Cocker said the division of the eountrv might find part of a factory business in one and part In another district.

Mr A. Lees (Jo 1 ! Company) said that his company believed in four wards, from a provincial aspect. It realised the provinces had to' he considered, and that they must he kept united. He moved , as an amendment, “That it be a recommendation to the conference that it approves of four wards, a.s suggested bv the sub-com-mittee. .instead of six.” ! 0n being put, the amendment was carried. In regard to tlie election of members Mr J. Marx moved that it he a recommendation that the voting should be bv individual producers and that any future levy should be dug} a .butterfat basis, not on an export tonnage basis. He said the Act must be altered to include every producer. Mr, A. Pearce said that if: a ward system were introduced most of the suppliers would exercise their voting power. '

Mr. Cocker said he would oppose the motion for all he was worth. The whole industry should pay the cost of control. If one man one vote were in operation, many would be voting who were not exporters*'. He instanced how a. big proprietary concern, with only a small export business would have much greater voting power than a large co-operative company with an equal tonnage and a far greater export business. The control of voting should be on aq export basis; and the concern with a very* small, export tonnage had no right to vote on such a matter.-; Mr. McGuinness said lie would like every supplier to have a vote on the election of the hoard, and it would he a shame to cut out a working producer.

The chairman said the latter was not cut out, but exercised his vote through his company. He added, in regard to Mr. Marx’s motion, that the Act would have to be amended. ■ Mr. J. P. Marx said that if legislation were necessary it should be secured for the whole. That was a. matter for the producers themselves, and it was not- right fo disfranchise any one of them.. Mr Duncan said’ the weight of the argument was all in favour of -the company. The individual farmer would get his vote through the-company. But there was a weakness in the position. Actually the vote of the company

went to one or other of two candidates, lie suggested a case where, of a hundred suppliers, seventy-five voted, say, for Smith, and twenty-five for Jones. In order tliat the latter might not lose their vote, he considered a form, of proportional representation was necessary, and the vote of that company recorded, say, three for Smith and one for Jones, and all the similar totals be recorded, so that the minority went to the final count. The individuals would thus get the benefit riglit to the end of the election. These totals wouJd go to the local returning officers, probably the secretaries, and from them to tlie -returning officer in Wellington, and all votes to each candidate would be totalled. Air. Lees Considered it would be found too complicated to go into such a procedure. The only practical way to work the election was through tho directors of a company. He moved as an amendment:

That this meeting of representatives of companies comprising the South Taranaki Federation of Dairy Companies is of opinion that the present system of voting for election of members of the Dairy Control Hoard is unsatisfactory, and considers it imperative that the present basis of election should be altered so that in the future the board shall be elected by producers on an export tonnage only. Further, this meeting is of opinion that the basis for computing the franchise of elec-£. tors should be one vote for ever** ton of butter and 1 oiie vote for eve; JL two tons of cheese exported by tlHpr company or person for the season previous to the election, and that the voting power allowed for in the resolution shall be exercised, by the company or person exporting the butter and (or) cheese.

He considered it should be compulsory to cull a meeting to decide if it should be a direct vote of the suppliers or be left to the directors. To be in the interests of the industry as a whole there should be direct representation to the control board, and whoever was elected should be chosen straight out by the directors. , He was absolutely* opposed to the council scheme. Mr. Taylor said it. should be incumbent on directors to call such a meeting to discuss the position, so that all could be given a, chance to exercise their votes, and that on a tonnage basis. Mr. Lees said he would not do anything without the direct instruction: of the suppliers. In that case, said the. chairman, there would need to be an amendment of the 'Act. He added that the voting could be done at a meeting or power given to the directors. He believed that .iit was a reflex of the producers’ opinion. The amendment was carried on the voices. Dealing with the question of representation of the companies, the chairman said that a decision must be reached and notice sent to the. convenors of the conference in Wellington before April 23. It was resolved: That this meeting recommends that it be compulsory for shareholders of companies to be called together to decide the manner in wlijch the vote of the company shall be exercised. The , ehai man repeated that the board had been requested by the Minister! to eontiol the conference, and that' it had had no hand otherwise' in its arrangements. The motion was carried, and it was stated that it was now incumbent oil, companies to have meetings well before April 20 and forward decisions to Wellington. In regard to the matter of the council of thirty for the Dominion, Mr. Lees said liis company was strongly opposed to this proposal.

The chairman said that companies must debate the matter and come to their own conclusions.. , It was resolved:. “That it.be a recommendation that this meeting is not in favour of the council, and that a copy of this resolution be sent to the Alinister.”

This concluded the business and the meeting then adjourned.