THE STORM BREAKS

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12433, 29 April 1926, Page 7

THE STORM BREAKS

HOSTILITIES COMMENCE IN GREAT DAIRYING BATTLE OPPOSITION LEAVE THE HALL DISRUPTION ON DAIRY CONTROL BOARD’S POLICY As was anticipated through the gathering clouds of the previous day, yesterday was a stormy one in the dairy industry. One of the largest conferences of dairying interests to be held here was held at Wellington, and resulted in a sensational disruption between the two factors —one supporting the policy of the Dairy Control Board, and the other desiring a greater hearing for the individual producer. The dissentients, representing a large percentage ot the industry in the Dominion, left the hall and took counsel elsewhere, while the conference—deprived almost of opposition—decided upon the export tonnage system of voting, the ward system of election, and that the factory directors should have the vote instead of the suppliers. The conference also endorsed the Board’s policy of absolute control. The resolutions of the conference will be placed before the Prime Minister to-day, while the dissentients will also place their case before Mr Coates as soon as possible. It was made clear that the decisions of the meeting would be merely an indication to Parliament as to how the farmers felt on the various questions affecting the operation of the Board.

Immediately Mr Grounds and the Minister took the platform the storm which had gathered on the previous day and overnight, burst upon the meeting. Mr J. Sinclair <Te Awamutu) sought to have a chairman appointed by the meeting itself, but Mr Grouncfs explained that this was not acceptable as the procedure had already been laid down. Tlie Dairy Control Board had been requested by the Minister to call the meeting, it being recognised as the only authority which tho industry had Personally he would rather be on the floor of the House (Cries of “Come down,” and ‘‘You would never get back”). Mil ISTER’S LETTER “This attack is Unwarranted a© far as the procedure is concerned and as far as the personality of the chairman is concerned,” Mr Grounds went on, “for I have forgotten for the time that I am chairman of the board.” \ Amid cries of “Take a vote,” he continued that it was impossible to depart from procedme already laid down. Mr J. Hine (Tikor&ngi) sought to move a further resolution, and when vigorously howled down, said: “I bow to your ruling, but I regret that the chairman has reverted from his previous contention that the dairy industry should exercise self-determina-tion.” Mr G Gibson (Rahitu) sought to have Mr W. A. Veitch, M.P., elected, but Mr Grounds was adamant and refused to acoept a resolution of this sort. At the insistent call of several members, Mr Grounds read the letter which he had deceived from the Minister for Agriculture (Hon. 0. J. Hawken), in which the Minister stated, “ . In confirmation of my verbal opinion that seeing that the Dairy Board may be looked upon as the organisation representative of the whole of the industry, tho meeting should be called by the Dairy Board and arranged by the board.” “WHO HAS THE SAY?” At this stage pandemonium was threatened by outbreaks of violent expressions in various quarters of the nail. “Three cheers for Air Grounds,” cried one man on the right. These

said that he had much pleasure in welcoming you all here—all of you (laughter). There was plenty of room for differences of opinion, but they should keep in mind the industry itself. The New Zealand dairymen had conducted their industry successfully, and he was confident of the future.

The meeting, he said, was called to help the Government to arrange for the voting on the board. The Act was passed by Parliament, but it would not interfere with the board’s lmsines*. It was found, however, that there had been a defect in the Act, nominally, the clause relating to the election of the board. It was the unanimous opinion that the ward system of voting was the fairest. Both Islands should have equal representation. He hoped that they would consider all the points before them, keeping in mind the interests of the industry. The dairyman deserved all that hie labour produced. He hoped that they would get down to work immediately. A familv scrap warn all right, but they should not lose the aim ot the meeting. TW* ISSUES SUBMITTED .Mr W. A. Veitch, M.P., gave notice to move at a later stage: “That this meeting of representatives of dairy companies expresses its emphatic desire that the members of the Dairy Control Board be elected on the single ward system—six wards for the North Island and three wards for the South Island—one producer to one vote.” The secretary, Mr T. O. Brabch, then proceeded to call the role, naming the voting power of each delegate. A roar went up when he called the name of IV. Goodfellow with 157 votes. The chairman said that he hoped that the relative resolutions would clarify tho position. He said that delegates were familiar with the issues and alternatives that were to come under discussion. He fully recognised that of late a good deal of feeling had been infused into the controversy, buti he hoped that the personalities would be forgotten, and that principles . only would be discussed. He, himself, would be fair and impartial. He could not, however, conduct the conference without the aid of the delegates. They were here as representatives of dairy companies, and they should feel that they had acted in the- interests of the industry as a whole. It took the conference some time to settle the priority of resolutions, and the chairman made an appeal for the aid of the conference to clarity the issues. It was submitted that Mr Veitch’s motion should be put in two sections. This was agreed to. METHOD OF VOTING

Mr Veitch, in moving his resolution, said that the subject had been well discussed, and moving the motion 1 he was addressing a meeting that thoroughly understood the issues. It was a question whether volume should be the controlling factor or that the individual should have a say. The control was of enormous importance to the country and the small farmer was just as vitally concerned as tho big commercial man. The man with one vote was just as much interested a's"the man with 157. The principle of one man one vote had been thrashed out many years ago. Unless they thought that the small farmer had not sufficient intelligence they should vote for the principle of one man one vote. 'Who ever heard of a member of Parliament being elected on tho principle of one cow one vote ?

He was willing that thA motion should be submitted in two sections: It was argued that the small farmer did not take enough interest in the industry, but this was an erroneous assumption. Mr J. Sinclair seconded, and said a simijar resolution was carried at a meeting of dairy companies' on tho previous day representing 18,265 tons of butter, 9567 tons of cheese, 19,300 suppliers and 90 factories. He, too, obejeted to the factory director having tlie say in the voting, to the detriment of the individual producer. “NEVER MILV- .' COW” Mr J. G. Brechin (Mangahao) said it must he obvious that there was a section at the meeting that had never milked a cow. Tlie mover, who was a member of Parliament, did not know tho front from the hack of a cow. (Loud and sustained cries of protest.) The chairman: I ask that personalities he dispensed with. Several voices: Withdraw. Mr Brechin: Has Mr Veitch milked a cow? Mr Veitch: I have been a dairy farmer, and intend to have another dairy farm soon. Mr Brechin: I withdraw. He then continued to aver that tho one-man one-vote was not an established principle, and pointed out that one supplier to his company (the

were given, and were enthusiastically followed by three equally vociferous cheers for what tho caller termed “British freedom and fair play.” Members rose in all quarters of the hall, and one man at the back invoked Mr Grounds* to place himself in the hands of the moetirg. "You will get the chair allright,” he said. “Who is to run this meeting?” asked another man, as he was dragged back tyfi- his seat by his neighbour, “this parasitic bunch of secretaries (pointing to the Waikato section) or by the bona fide dairymen?” Mr Grounds said it was unbecoming al lo the industry to continue the controversy, and Asked for adherence to the procedure .already laid down. Mr Sinclair (Te Awamutu) intimated that under protest his section of the meeting would submit to tho ruling of Mr Grounds, cries of “Sit down,” and “We want to hear the Alinister,” greeting his explanation. ADDRESS BY MINISTER Addressing tlie meeting the Alim's* ter for Agriculture (Hon. O. J. Hawkon), who was received with applause

chairman) received a cheque of £SOO for January and distributed it among four families. 1 Another supplier, tho manager of a gas works, received a cheque of 7s 6d, and received, along with the chairman, one yote. This was not fair. “MAN WHO P' YS” Mr Edwards (Taupiri) maintained that they must keep the individual supplier alive to marketing of his products. He was entitled to every penny and more if it could be got. (Laughter.) They wanted to arouse the interest of the individual supplier and give him a *»y- It was he who was hearing the brunt of the industry A member: Are ve going to allow every Tom, Dick and Harrv, who has one coiv to vote. Mr G. Gibson (Opua) said that this was a co-operative concern. The members of the board were at present elected on tlie single vote system. If it came to a question of life and death the small man would ho more unwilling to part with his lot than the big producer. Every man had bis rights. Mr Buchanan (Kairnnga) said he believed that the man who paid should have the vote. “We do not mean the directors to have the vote,” he said; “If the levy could be made on the manufactured output, tlie position would he different, but as the levy is made only on the exporvble surplus, the producer should have the say.” DEFINITE INSTT- CTICNS “Give ns an opportunity to vote,”

cried one delegate, “because we have come here with clear-cut instructions how we are to record our yote.” Mr J„ Hine (Tikorangi) expressed surprise that an attempt had been made so early to disfranchise the producer, and said that this was done when the farmer expressed a desire to escape the “pernicious chain of interests.” The question had been made a political one by the commercial interests on behalf of the Control Board. Mr G. Bailey (Hamua) said that he wished to see some scheme evolved in which the supplier kept his vote. Mr W. J. Thomas (Belvedere) said that there was something before the meeting that was trying to tangle the delegates. He would, if the motion was defeated, move a further motion. Mr Veitch said that there had been no attempt to mystify anyone. Tho amendment was fair, and had the effect of dividing the motion into two parts. .Mr Brechin said that the co-opera-tive dairy industry was composed of all the parties engaged in the fight. Mr W. Campbell 7 (Manawatu): Do you question anybody’s honesty? Mr Brechin: There are a lot of people to whom I would not lend £IOO. Mr W. C. Green (Rahotu): I want to say—— A voice: Speak up 1 Mr Green: I’ll speak up if you’ll shut up! Continuing, the speaker said that the ward system would mean the same as the second part of the motion. “LEFT VING” LEAVES More trouble arose when the system was being discussed. Mr Grounds maintained that a roll-call would have? to be taken if the decision of the voices on the amendment was challenged. This was done, and the opposing section asked that a show of hands should decide the question instead of the voting strength of the companies on the tonnage basis being employed. The chairman was immovable, however, and said the procedure was laid down. Mr J. Sinclair then rose and said: “I move that as to the ruling of the chairman all tnose opposed to it should retire and further consider the matter.” This was heartily accepted, and a large body of men (comprising the “Left YVing”) rose and left the hall, amid cries of “Call the roll!” from those remaining in*tlie hall. Various suggestions were then advanced for restoring harmony, and the roll-call was finally proceeded with on the question of tho amendment, which sought to delete the words “one producer one VGte.” from Mr Y T eitcb*s resolution. The amendment was carried by 773 votes to 35, the individuals in the room voting 227 for and 9 against. The total voting strength of the conference was assessed at 1149. Those who left the conference took no part in the vote. Tho motion of Mr Veitch was deferred till the basis of voting was decided by the conference. . Mr D. Rutledge (Kcnnington) ed:—“That the basis of voting for the election of members of the Dairy Board should be on the export tonnage of butter and cheese upon a sliding scale—one ton of buttei to ti\c tens of cheese.” MAXIMUM VOTE SOUGHT Mr J. R. Corrigan supported the resolution and said the committee of tho Dairy Council had decided that tin* tonnage basia was the only one upon which everyone would get a fair deal. All the dairymen asked was that every man that supplied a factory should have representation on tho same hasis. Objection was taken by Mr IV. T. Ltll (Ashburton') to one factory having 150 odd vote*, and naked that a maximum vote be assessed—say 30 or 40 rote*. Hie chairman: This deals with the principle only. The sliding scale may be decided upon later on. Mr Rutledge too-k a national view, and said the interests of the north were those of the south. The question had been mixed up with that of class legislation. The resolution was carried on the voices, very few dissenting. With tho disposal of this resolution, the conference was threatened with be-

ing clogged with a superfluity of resolutions, new points being raised in many quarters of the hall. THE DIRECT VOTE Mr F. McDonald (Hikurangi) sought to move: “That the directors of the 'dairy companies elect the members of the Control Board by their direct vote.” Mr J. G. Brechin seconded this, and praised the directors for building up the industry. An attempt was being made to take the power from these directors. Mr Fret? (Mangatoki) moved as an amendment that before a vote was taken, suppliers should be asked to express their views, and the votes allocated according to this expression. Mr G. A. Duncan (Tirimoana) seconded, and said the suppliers would vote individually, and these would ho allocated to the factory according to its voting qualifications on the tonnage basis. At this stage tho secretary of the board (Mr T. C. Brash) read a cable from London stating: “Consider it advisable to retain direct individual vote of the producer on the ward system, in order to retain the producers’ interest- in the board.” DIRECTORS OR SUPPLIERS? Hon. J. B. Gow (Coromandel) considered that to give the suppliers the vote and make the directors merely leturning officers weuld be unworkable. Mr Brechin pointed out that the system was going to present many difficulties, and predicted that the manipulation of the votes would be hard. The proprietary concerns could exercise compulsion on their supplies and influence them to vote in a certain direction. Were they friends or enemies? T; ihe suppliers have shown Us twice,” lie said, “that they do not want to voto.” Tn reply to Mr Belton, the chairman said the conference would draw up general recommendations for Parliament, and it would be for the House to consider the many aspects which would present themselves. “A MESS OF THINGS” Mr J. B, Barnett (Linkwater) advanced the opinion that Parliament, having made a mess of things so far in respect to the system of voting, wished for some direction from, this conference as to the lines upon which to proceed. Mr J. Dunlop (Rimu) agreed to an optional, but not compulsory, vote of suppliers. Mr T. Moss (Newman) said that, in listening to some of the stuff talked at the conference, he felt almost ashamed that he was a factory director. It was most unfair to attack the directors as had been done. His own suppliers had come to him and said: “\Ve know nothing of this; how would you advise us?” What was the use if the vote was not an intelligent one ? Cries of “Vote! Vote!” interrupted Further would-be speakers. The question was resolved into a motion in favour of a directors’ direct vote, and an amendment for a compulsory suppliers’ vote. A division upon this If sue, taken at 4 p.m., resulted in the amendment being defeated by ' 558 votes to 212, the individuals in the hall voting 161 against and 67 for the amendment. The resolution was then carried on the voices. THE VOTING BASIS Mr J. R. Corrigan moved, as an indication t of the voting basis, that it be one vote for one ton of butter and One vote for two tons of cheese. Mr Grounds: The conference baa already decided upon a sliding scale. Mr Corrigan: Who is going to decide the voting power? The chairman: It is competent for the conference to indicate. Mr E. Harding (North Wairoa) moved that the sliding scale be the same as that decided upon at a conference in 1923 held in Wellington for the election of the Dairy Control Board—one vote Tor every 100 tons of butter up to 500 tons, and one additional vote for each additional 150 tons above the 500-ton mark, two tons of cheese to be the equivalent of one ton of butter—--150 votes to be a maximum. The resolution was then carried. Mr W. Goodfellow (Waikato) did not agree with the maximum vote, and said the voting had already been reduced. Mr Harding withdrew the provision of a maximum. absolute control Hon. J. B. Gjtv (Coromandel) then moved: “That this conference desires to place on record its appreciation of the work done on behalf of the dairy industry by the Dairy Control Board, and endorses its decision to bring into operation absolute control in August next.” Mr Rutledge seconded and said the chairman had stood up against “an jA unscrupulous propaganda.” The hoard had saved companies many hundreds w* of pounds. The resolution was carried w th one dissentient. Mr Grounds was cheered as he rose to repiy. Ho thanked all concerned for tho assistance given him. There was no question as to the course of the board, and the fact that they were getting nearer to the task had not deterred them in their determination to see through what the industry desired. He refuted the misrepresentations that he said had been made against the socalled Bolshevik or Socialistic policy of the hoard. Develooments had to be kept pace witb. There were dangers, and the opponents of the board who had been inflaming the public mind would have to tAke care lest they create a more serious position by adding still another fire to those which had already been kindled.

The boa?*d wished to nerve the industry ; and when they had done that to the noint desired thev would be satisfied that the board had gained its point. Tfc was decided that a committee place the resolutions of the meeting before the Prime Minister. A t tho conclusion of the meeting the chairman was. accorded a vote of thanks and “For He’s a Jolly Good Fellow” followed.