SINGLE WARD SYSTEM

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12425, 20 April 1926, Page 9

SINGLE WARD SYSTEM

DAIRY PRODUCE CONTROL BOARD “DEMOCRATIC AND EQUITABLE” SYSTEM OF ELECTION ONE PRODUCER, ONE VOTE The present system of electing the members of the Dairy Control Hoard is that the whole of the North Island is treated as one constituency—similarly the South Island. The result is that the vote from one district, say Taranaki, may be, and in fact has been, swamped by the Auckland and Waikato vote; and even Mr Grounds admits the system is unsatisfactory. The only way to overcome this is to divide the Both islands, into several constituencies, each returning its own member to the board on the basis of one producer one vote, in just the same way as members of Parliament are elected. This system, which is known as the “single ward system,” is the only democratic and equitable manner of electing the board. In favour of the single ward system, the following resolutions are illuminating. The Dairy Control Board last July passed a unanimous resolution in favour of the single ward system which is recorded in their minutes. The National Dairy Association at its annual meeting at Hawera last year also voted unanimously in favour of the single ward system. Similar resolutions have oeen passed by the South Island Dairy Association, the Dairy Farmers’ Union, the Auckland Provincial Dairy Companies’ Association, the . West Coast Dairy Companies’ Association, the Wairarapa Federated Dairy Association, and by numerous individual dairy factories all over the Dominion. Added to all these, the Prime Minister and several members of the Cabinet and Parliament have also expressed themselves in favour of the single ward system. PRODUCERS FAVOUR SINGLE WARD SYSTEM

As a matter of fact, there is really no need for a conference of producers to ascertain the feeling of the industry on the method of electing the board. Producers are very strongly, and almost unanimously, in favour of the single ward system, on the basis of one producer one vote, and in trying to introduce any other method, it looks as IF* Messrs Grounds and Goodfellow are making a desperate dying effort to avoid the single ward system at any cost. Why are they so keen to avoid this single ward system? Does the following extract from a letter written -some time ago by Mr Goodfellow to certain co-opera-tive dairy companies answer the question ? “The present system of voting has proved a farce, but nevertheless it is better to adhere to d the existing system ratheia than change to the ward system, which undoubtedly would result in absolute control being turned down at the next election.” To show that there are other views in the Waikato than those promulgated by Mr Goodfellow, a conference of co-operative dairy companies was called for Wednesday last at Hamil-ton-tp, consider this election question, and eight factories passed a unanimous resolution in favour of the single ward system, with the voting to he in the hands of the individual producers. Other factories that were unable to attend the meeting, sent in letters agreeing to the single ward system. A VAIN ENDEAVOUR As soon as the invitations were issued for this conference, a epuntermeeting was called at for the day previous, and was addressed by Mr Goodfellow, but only six'factories turned up, and when a resolution was put to the meeting favouring the creation of dairy council, from which the members of the board are to be elected, it was agreed to by only four of the factories present. Mr Goodfellow’s meeting was therefore nothing short of a vain endeavour to create an impression that the whole of the Waikato opposes the single ward system, and as such was a complete failure. In point of fact, there are not only a large number of factories in tbe Waikato, but also a great many suppliers in Mr Goodfeliow’s own company, who are . strongly in favour of the single ward system. Did the Minister for Agriculture definitely ask the Control Board to appoint its own chairman and to fix the method of voting at the conference of producers to be held in Wellington on April 28th; or did he merely issue general instructions to the board to arrange the details of the meeting?

If the latter, there is a very strong feeling abroad that the Control Board has overstepped its rights and should have left it to the conference itself to fix the method of voting, and to appoint its own chairman. Despite an organised effort to the contrary, the conference will, no doubt, agree to tho principle of the single ward system, but having got this far, it is anticipated that an attempt will then be made to defeat tho democratic principle of one producer one vote, and substitute therefor a system of voting on the tonnage basis—in fact an organised movement is being made along these lines at the present time. The unfairness of such a method is obvious. Voting on a tonnago basis is a vicious system. There is no substitute for the democratic principle of one producer one vote.