Bobby Calf Industry

Manawatu Times, Volume 63, Issue 82, 7 April 1938, Page 5

Bobby Calf Industry

PROPOSAL FOR NATIONALISATION FARMERS’ UNION WANTS ANOTHER VOTE TAKEN The proposal for nationalisation of the bobby calf industry under the control of the Dairy Board, with particular reference to the vote at present being taken on the subject, was discussed at some length by the Manawatu provincial executive of the Farmers’ Union yesterday, the upshot being the passing of a resolution asking for another vote to be taken when the proposals have been fully explained. Mr. E. O. Bond suggested that an intelligent vote could not be obtained from suppliers, because the average supplier did not know anything about the proposal. However, he thought the scheme that was proposed was a good one, although it lent itself to a political atmosphere. “That is my opinion exactly,” stated Mr. A. G. Dear. He added that the whole thing was being rushed through too quickly. The chairman (Mr. H. J. McLeavey) said it behoved dairy companies to see that their shareholders were enlightened on the matter. Mr. L~ Wilton stated that the shareholders to his company had held a meeting. He added that private interests were making efforts to influence the farmers against the proposal. The small companies and the cheese factories had called meetings of their suppliers, said Mr. W. H. Gimblett, but the large butter factories had apparently adopted the method of sending out circulars to their suppliers. He thought the whole thing was going to be a farce. Half the farmers would vote one way aud half the other way, and the Government would say that the farmers did not know their own mind and would then do what they liked.

Mr. Bond moved that the executive protest against the vote, on the ground that the average farmer was not acquainted with the nature of the proposals, owing to the shortness of notice and the lack of opportunity for explaining them, and that the executive ask for another vote to be taken when tho full nature of the proposals was known.

Mr. Gimblett seconded the motion, saying that the whole thing had got to be abandoned.

The chairman: I wonder if we are tearing something down and not putting anything in its place. The onus is on the dairy companies to enlighten their suppliers, and if they have not done so, they are to blame.

Mr. N. Campbell said no pool plans had been worked out yet, and all that dairy company directors knew wgs in the circular sent out by the Minister. If the directors of his company had called a meeting of suppliers, only about one-quarter or one-third would have attended; so it had been decided to send out the Minister’s circular to all suppliers. A number of votes had come back marked, “Too much control,” indicating that the farmers concerned were “fed up” with the amount of control at the present time. There was an advantage in the bobby calf proposals in that the scheme would be controlled by the Dairy Board and not the Government, for the farmers had some say in the election of the Dairy Board representatives. s' Mr. L. Wilton was of the opinion that the circulars should have gone out with a recommendation from the directors to their suppliers. “Instead of trying to get a vote from the individual suppliers, it would have been better for it to have come from the directors,” suggested the chairman, who pointed out that the directors were elected by the suppliers to look after their interests. Mr. G. J. Wilde did not think the motion went far enough. The matter, he thought, was one that should be completely thrashed out at the annual meetings of dairy companies, and the scheme should be held up for 12 months. “You won’t get anywhere by trying

to put this off for another 12 months,’ said the chairman.

Mr. Wilde then moved as an amendment that the scheme be held up until dairy companies could discuss it at their annual meetings, and that the Dairy Board be asked to supply concrete information to jiut before the meetings. Mr. J. T. Kent supported the amendment.

Mr. C. P. Jensen suggested that no director would agree to a vote being taken on the subject at an annual meeting. There were plenty of matters to discuss at annual meetings without adding a subject that might take hours to thrash out. The speaker added that the Minister of Marketing already had power to put the scheme into operation without consulting anybody.

Mr. Wilde drew attention to the fact that there was nothing in his amendment requiring a vote to be taken at annual meetings. The chairman said some dairy company directors had supplied their shareholders with all the information they could, but others had not done so. Mr. C. Webb stated that, as a supplier to the Levin Dairy Company, he had been given all the information he needed to enable him to vote on the matter.

“We must; have some system whereby we will get the full value of our bobby calves,” reclared Mr. H. Bowling, ‘ ‘ but so far we have been given no information as to how the scheme is to be worked.”

The chairman pointed out that tho only difference between the amendment and the motion was that the amendment would hold the matter up for 12 months.

>On the proposals being put to the meeting, the amendment was lost and the motion carried.