POWER DIVIDED

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume 58, Issue 4105, 25 February 1949, Page 9

POWER DIVIDED

DAIRY PRODUCE BOARD AND COMMISSION FARMERS SEEK INFORMATION Following a request for infor- » mation regarding the duplication of the New Zealand Dairy Board and the Dairy Products Marketing Commission, the Paeroa branch of the Federated Fanners received the following explanation from the Auckland branch of their union.

“ The Dairy Produce Amendment Bill, inter alia, reconstitutes and enlarges the present board from five to eight members as from July 1, 1949. On the reconstructed board there will now be seven members of the dairy industry and one Government appointee—the South Island having one member and the North Island six.

“ Some of the remarks made by both Messrs Baxter and Smith, Members of Parliament, are interesting. I quote from Hansard:— Mr Baxter: I think the constitution of the board is a matter not for the Government but for the individual farmers concerned. I wonder, for instance, whether it is necessary to have two statutory authorities. I do not know how long you can go on ignoring responsible bodies or what should be responsible bodies— and I think in the main they are—such as the dairy section of Federated Farmers. Mr Smith: This bill is very acceptable to the industry with that minor expection (i.e. one Government appointee) but it has taken ' the Government a long time to accede to the wishes of the industry in this respect. I would say that when the board had full control it did a pretty fair job of work.

“In attempting to define for you the respective functions of the board and the commission,” the letter continued, “ I do so with a shade of diffidence because there does seem some overlapping, or, at least, it seems rather difficult to draw a clear line of demarcation. The two main functions of the commission are, (a) orderly marketing, (b) price fixation. The board would appear to now act in an advisory capacity apart, of course, from its administrative and technical functions which are wide and 11 varied.

“ My personal opinion is that there may be a heightening of controversy as to the necessity of preserving two statutory bodies. I must agree, to some extent at least, with Mr Corbett, M.P., who in debate on the Bill, said: » ‘ I think there is one most important matter that the Dairy Board’s attention might be drawn to and that is the advisability to be slightly more frank than it has been up to the present.’ “He then went on to say, discussing price negotiations:—

‘ I will admit that at the time of the negotiations the secrecy that was adopted had every justification, but now that the case has been finalised, the industry’s case, as presented by the Dairy Board on behalf of the costs committee, is the business of the individual producers who are the ones vitally concerned. I think the time is long overdue when the Dairy Board should have made its position clear in that regard.’ “ It is to be hoped that there will be much closer co-operation and frankness between the board and Federated Farmers in the future. The federation has made strong efforts to achieve that desirable state which is the only perfect one or complete understanding within the industry. “ Fundamentally one must remember, of course, that because of apathy in not exercising his right of franchise, the producer lost his original right of individually voting his nomination for the board. In any future deliberations or controversy that might arise on the question of the board or the commission it is hoped that the producer individually will assert himself or, at least, see that the principles of practical democracy are sufficiently preserved to obviate a repetition of the past.” “ It takes a lot of thinking out, doesn’t it? ” commented Mr A. F. Thorp, chairman of the Paeroa branch of the Federated Farmers at the February meeting. ‘‘lt does seem to me that the original Dairy Board did lose a lot of its power when the Government took over our produce,” he said. “They have been given back a certain amount of power but the power which they should have been given back seems to have been divided between them and the Marketing Board.”