CONTROL ISSUE

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 4 August 1926, Page 5

CONTROL ISSUE

DEBATED BY HOUSE.?

THE VOTING PRINCIPLE

MINISTER’S EXPLANATION.

(by TELEGRAPH —PRESS ASSOCIATION.) WELLINGTON, Aug. 3. 1 In the House of Representatives 1 ' night, the Hon. O. J. Haw ken- mov ; the second reading of the Dairy Pi l duee Export Control Amendment Bi : After describing the two min - amendments, the Minister said: “T important feature of the Bill is t . provision made for the election . members of the board. For this pi pose the measure provides for the dii ■ sion of the Dominion into nine ward > six of which are situated in the Nor Island and three in the South Islan f The wards comprise various eountie , and include boroughs and town di ' tricts within the boundaries of cou : ties. At any time after an election tl > Governor-General may redefine t : boundaries of the wards and, in doia ; so, is to have regard to the communi ■ of interest among producers endeavou , ing to secure a nearer approximati< to equality in the amount of dairy pr . duee annually produced for export . the North and South Island! wards r spectively.

; “After the passing of : the Act, tl Governor-General is empowered to all to the producers’ representatives th« in office as members of the board oi ward each, which they will continue represent. In making an allotment? tl clause suggests that an endeavour 1 made to ensure that the representatii is a person i-esiding or having a pla< of business in the particular ward.”' The Minister then proceeded; to e plain the system under which electioi will be conducted after the passing i the Bill. At any election of a. repr | tentative for any ward only those ph ducers who supply milk or cream to factor situated within the ward! an manufacturing dairy pix>duce for e port-, will be entitled to vote and sha have one vote only. There will I postal voting, and om the voting pa,p< is to be marked the appropriate nun her of the ward and the name of. tl factory to which the supplier suppli< milk and cream. A supplier of mil or cream to two or more factories i one ward is entitled to one vote, hi lias the option to elect to exercise h privilege in respect of any one of tl factories. ' A supplier of milk or creai to two or more factories situated i different wards is entitled to vote i .. respect of each ward. On recipt of all the voting paper: the returning officer (who,is to be-a officer of the Public Service) will a range them with reference to factorie to which the producers are supplier: and will ascertain with respect to eac factory separately the number of vali votes recorded in favour of the cand dates- It is then the duty of the r< turning officer to- ascertain separately with respect to each company by whie any factory is owned or occupied, th number of valid votes recorded for tb candidates. One of the reasons wh the principle of “one man one vote was unfair in the dairy industry wa that production by makers of chees was greater per capita thali with butte producers. With cheese workers it wa '2.24 tons per capita, as again 1.1 with th© butter-makers. For tha reason the Bill provides that the resul of an election shall be determined- b; the allocation of tonnage votes', 'am the candidate _ receiving the greaies number of these is elected for the par ticular ward. v. ,

It is further provided that the can didate who receives the greatest, nuin her of valid votes from suppliers to th< factory or factories of any c-ompani shall be entitled to receive all the ton, nage votes allotted to that company Where two candidates secure an equa number of suppliers’ votes the tonnage votes may be divided but in the evem of a “draw” in the number of tonnage votes received, the winner is the candidate who received the greatest number of suppliers’ votes. . This system, saic) Air. Hawken, hac given them a great deal of thought, and he thought in its result it would be found to work out fairly. Provision was made in the Bill that the present members of the board should be allotted to their own wards, so that there was no danger of the board being onesided. He personally was satisfied that the board would not be differently constituted had the ward system been in force when the board was originally constituted. There had been a great deal of controversy on the election of the hoard, but he was .bound to say that the present members had been elected fairly and squarely by the bulk of the producers of the Dominion. They had had a great deal of experience in the commercial side of the industry as well as the manufacturing side, and when lie read criticism alleging that members were inexperienced lie frankly admitted, that he did not know where to look for experienced men. The dairy farmers of New Zealand: had built up their own industry, which was now the largest, and this had been done by business methods of which we had every reason to be proud. Members of the board had been in the forefront of this constructive policy, and lie thought that- if they had been so successful in building up the business of their respective companies he was prepared to entrust to them the larger problem of managing the Dominion’s output. /

The individual producer had, .as a matter of fact, never sold his own produce. This had always been done by the 'directors of the companies, and all that was now proposed was that- the Control Board should take the x>lace of the directors. Alany in the dairy industry were afraid of control because it was an innovation. Others opposed control because they wished to see the dairy farmers disunited. Control, said Air. Hawken, was the best answer to the- operations of trusts and combines, and when the industry came under the Act it would deriye great benefits. Considerable savings had already been made in the matters of insurance, hut the greatest, savings would he at the marketing end by the elimination of speculators. The board would not control prices, but it could do a great deal to help the position. He commended the measure to members.

Mr H. IC. Holland (Leader of the Opposition) said he was aware that a large number of fanners had refrained from voting on that issue, but he did not consider the cause had the right to assume that .the farmers for that reason were opposed to control He favoured .the ward system and the individual vote for suppliers, but his party would oppose voting on the tonnage basis, (because that meant substituting l>ut.ter for human beings and it would still ibo possible for a minority of tons of butter to outvote a majority of tons of butter.

Air. Holland favoured control because it was a counter-stroke to the trusts

and combines, but they must remember that they must either own their trusts or the trusts wilL own them:. He was surprised at the bitterness with which, the campaign against control was being fought. The best proposal for the disposal of the Ponuitiiou’s primary products was that made by the British Labour Government, namely that the Government should take charge of the produce and eliminate the speculator in its marketing. That .scheme could not be given effect to and this was the next best tiring. His party would therefore support the ward system and the “one vote one man.” hilt would oppose the tonnage .system. The lion. ,1. A. Young, minister of Health, said the Government had' been subject to. considerable criticism because it bad brought in the control of dairy produce, but as a. matter ol fact the Government bad nothing to do with control. The dairy farmers themselves bad decided in favour of control and Parliament had merely provided the machinery by which that decision could he given effect to. He favoured control (because it would counteract the operations of speculators, who were exploiting tiie producers. The results, of this exploiting now had such an effect upon the minds of the producers that they were not prepared to enter upon a scheme of co-operation, in marketing, and that was all that was meant by control.

Mr. \Y. A. Veiteh (Wanganui) maintained that compulsory control was the antithesis of co-operation, the very essence of which was freedom of action. Only a .section of the dairy producers Iliad favoured compulsion and that did not justify control; nor did it justify Parliament in interfering to give effect to control. Control, was; pure Socialism and it must fail because Socialism could never .succeed. The whole of the opposition to compulsion did not come from the proprietary concerns. . Mr. Veiteh predicted, that compulsion would benefit the proprietary concerns because, under it co-operative factories Would noli he able to get the advances required in the early part of the season. Compulsion .should be postponed until such time as the financial position was more assured, and when all concerned could start from, the siame point. He criticised the system, of voting: as being unscientific and designed to. secure the election of one particular gentleman. , Mr. «T, A. Hash (Palmerston North) congratulated the Government on bringing down a Hill dealing; with the ward system and the method of voting, but so far las control was concerned he had opposed it and was still opposed to it. Mr. Nash indicated that he proposed to move iseveral amendments *to the Bill, one of which, would include the “one man, one vote”, principle. Mir. H. G. S. Mason (Eden) objected to the system of voting adopted in the Bill, which was the worstpossible .that could have been "chosen because no voter could control the final destination of his vote. The toss of a coin might as well have been adopted. ■Sir Joseph Ward: (Invercargill) ridiculed the idea mentioned by Mr. Holland that the British Government should take over Dominion produce and dispose of it because, to protect, those sources of supply, they would have to take over all other sources of supply. He objected to compulsory control because every man had a right to dispose of the products of his.own labour. The Labour Party was supporting control because it was in keeping with their policy of nationalising the means of production, distribution and exchange. Mr. Holland was more far-seeing (than the members of the Government because ho could see the end of his policy and the members of tffo Reform Party could not. I\Xr. H. 2NX. Oam-pfoell (XXaiwJce* s 33ay) considered that before the Bill became law the present members of the board should retire and a fresh election should be held. In that event lie was confident that the majority would turn down compulsion. tinder compulsion there would be no incentive to maintain the quality of New Zealand butter. AH that would matter would be the quantity and that which so far had been the mainstay of our dairy industry would disappear. Control was Socialistic, Communistic, Bolshevik or something of" tlrat sort and he feared for the consequences of our going on as we appeared t#be doing. After tiie Telegraph Office closed, the debate, on the Dairy Produce Export Control Bill was continued by Mr J. M. Dickson (Chalmers), who, although he had been asked by ia section of lii.s constituents to (support- control, would not do so because he- did not believe in it.

The Hon. I). BudcLo (Kaiapoi) Bad previously voted for control, being undo r the impression that it would not he exercised except in cases of emergency. As no emergency existed, and control was to be exercised, he would revere,s his vote and support the amendment for postponement'. Air F. Waite (Ciutha) favoured control because, in this case, it, was not State control, but was producer control. In view of possible competition, it was necessary that the farmers should organise, but the opponents of the Bill would deny them that right. Seventylive iior cent, of the dairy farmers favoured control, and the last conference decided in favour of. the voting! ,system contained iu the Bill. Therefore, if the House wished to support the farmers, members would support the Bill as it stands.

Mr C. E. Bellringer (Taranaki) was opposed to control because it was contrary to the true spirit of co-operation, which lie considered was essential lo the prosperity of the dairy industry. Dairy farmers in his district may ho erroneous in their ideas, hut lie thought they were right in opposing coinpuliscry control. For that reason lie would voto to kill the Bill, or in any other way delay its operation. The Minister, in reply, said that most of the arguments used by the opponents of the compulsory clauses word .such; as they werb familiar with. That opposition meant that the Hmiic, after having given the farmers power to control their <nvn kUistrv, was - now asked to take that power away, wliich was not logical. The second 'leading was agreed to on the voices, and tko House rose at 2.45 a.in. til l 2.30 p.m.

TROUBLE AT HOME ALLEGED

.MB V.EITCH ASKS QUESTIONS. (By Telegraph.—Special to The Star.) WELLINGTON, Aug. 3. A suggestion was contained in a question by Mr IV'. A. Vcitcli (Wanganui) to tin' Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. O. .1. Ifawken, in the House today that there has been trouble in connection with the Dairy Control Board’s oft leers in England. Mr Vcitch wished the Minister to inform Parliament, if a majority of the Dairy Board’s members were in favour of postponing the compulsory marketing scheme, and if the board’s London manager had asked to resign unless lie was appointed to the London board. Mr Hawken replied that ho had no knowledge of any such difference of opinion on the board, nor did he lcnow r anything regarding the board’s London manager.

Mr Vcitcli .suggested, in a question to the Prime Minister, that in view of the early discussion of the Control Bill, the

House should be informed regarding the views of the Imperial Government on compulsory marketing, if it had expressed any views, and if he would also inform the House regarding the view's of the High Commissioner. The Government representative on the London board and a member of the Rural Banking Commission, regarding the desirability of postponing the operation of compulsion. The Prime Minister replied that ho would be glad to give Parliament any information when he could obtain it, but the question only came to his notice a few' minutes before it was asked.