DAIRY INDUSTRY.

Otago Witness, Issue 3764, 4 May 1926, Page 13

DAIRY INDUSTRY.

COMPANIES CONFER. LIVELY DISCUSSIONS ENSUE. WELLINGTON, April 28. The conference of dairy companies, which was called by the Dairy Control Board at the instance of the Government, and held in the Concert Chamber of the Town Hall to-day, was lively and even stormy at times.. The first clash was on the question of chairmanship, Mr W. Grounds, chairman of the Control 'Board, presiding ex-officio, but a section of the meeting wanted the meeting to elect its own chairman, and a motion was moved to that effect. Mr Grounds said the resolution before the meeting was altoS ether irregular. The Dairy Control Board ad received a request from the Minister to make arrangements for the conference and for the conduct of the proceedings. The'responsibility for the conference and for its conduct was upon the board/ (Cries of “Hear, hear,” and much dissent.) From a personal point of view, 1 declared Mr Grounds, no one would wish tnore than he that he should be on the floor of the. house.—(Voices: Come down * ' ■V" > • ■ ■

here, then.) Mr Grounds said he took the responsibility as a duty, and in his opinion, and in the opinion of the members of ttm board, it was incumbent on the board to appoint a chairman for the meeting. It was a duty devolving on the board, and on him as its principal executive officer, to select a chairman. The resolution before the meeting was quite irregular, and the conference would have to proceed on the lines that had been laid down.— (Applause and dissent). After further discussion and not a little disorder Mr Grounds read the authority of the Minister for the board to call the meeting, and ruled out of order any proposal that the meeting should elect its own chairman. To this the meeting submitted under protest. Mr Grounds then asked the Minister of Agriculture to address the gathering. The Hon. Mr Hawken said there was no industry so large nor so progressive as the v airy industry. That was largely due to the dairymen themselves. The meeting had been called to assist the Government in working out a system of election of members of the Dairy Control Board. The dairymen had brought the Act into force, and he did not think that the Government was likely to interfere unduly with the business of the dairvmen. System or no system, the members of the board had been fairly representative of all the districts up. to now, but they wished to guard against any mistake in the future. He knew they w-anted to get to work, and he would not prevent them by any prolonged speech. He hoped the meeting would keep the interests ot the dairy industry at heart and that the industry would meet with all the success it deserved. The industry was a most important one from the Dominion’s point oi view. Mr Grounds retained the chair. Mr W. A. Veiteh, M.P., gave notice to move, and Mr Sinclair to second, a motion: That tills meeting of dairy companies expresses its emphatic desire that the members of the Dairy Control Board be elected on the democratic basis of the “single ward system,” with six wards for the North Island and six wards for the South Island; one producer to have one vote. Addressing the conference, Mr Grounds said that for the moment he was not chairman of the Control Board, and he would endeavour to be entirely impartial. He hoped any motions submitted would be classified. They were all aware of the various systems of control. He recognised that of late a good deal of feeling had been infused into the question, but he hoped that personalities and feelings of any sort would be discarded. lie would endeavour to give them all an opportunity of expressing their views. Mr Grounds appealed to delegates to assist the chairman in conducting the meeting, and he hoped at the end of it, no matter what the conclusions arrived at were, delegates would have acted in a manner worthy of the industry. Mr Grounds said he would be prepared at the conclusion of the main question to allow a discussion on the general control issue.—(Applause.) He suggested that the first part of Mr Veitch’s motion referring to the ward system could, be put and dealt with, and the second section could be taken later. Mr Veiteh, in moving his motion, said the subject had been thoroughly and well discussed, and the meeting understood the position. The motion was really a test whether the volume of interests or individual interests should control the industry. In -every country outside Russia the individual with small interests had much more at stake than the man who had large interests. The small farmer whose finances were weak, and who was struggling under a load of indebtedness, had as much, say, at stake as the man who had, say, 157 votes. The one man one vote principle had been in vogue in New Zealand for very many years. Whoever heard oi a member of Parliament being elected as the result of wealthy men having more votes than poor men? Every dairy farmer was taxed for the administration of the Dairy Control Board, and he should have representation. He was quite willing that the motion should be submitted to the meeting in two sections. The motion was seconded by Mr A. J. Sinclair, who said that the resolution had been carried at a meeting on Tuesday which was largely representative of the dairy farmers. J hey were determined not to forfeit their right to vote to the directors of the dairy factories. An individual farmer should have the right to sa.y who should sit on the boaru. After a number of speakers had ventilated their views on the motion with more or less freedom of speech—in which there w as much / discussion around the words “one producer one vote”—the chairman put the motion with these words left out. The voices were equally loud and seemingly as numerous for as against the omission of these words. A show of hands was demanded, but the chairman said the roll would have to be called. Mr Hine: On a tonnage basis? The Chairman said the motion had been carried. Mr Sinclair challenged the chairman's ruling, and he called upon all who 'protested against this action, and all who agreed with him, to retire. This was done and a large part of the meeting withdrew. Mr Grounds remarked that what had taken place showed very clearly that the business would never have got past the question of the basis of tho vote. Mr J. R. Corrigan having demanded a division, the scrutineers took a vote by roll. In reply to a question Mr Groundi said the motion would read as Mr Veiteh proposed it, but omitting the words: “One producer one vote.” The result of the roll call on the motion as amended was: For 773, against 35, a total of 808 votes. The individual votes, the chairman said, were: Ayes 227. noes 9. Replying to Mr Corrigan, the Chairman said he thought there were 1149 votes on the roll. Mr Routledge moved as an amendment that consideration of the motion before the meeting bo deferred until the t conference had determined the basis of voting. Until the basis of voting was settled they should not decide on the system to be used. The amendment was seconded by Mr Fisher and carried with one dissentient voice. Mr Routledge then moved: That the basis of voting for membership of the Dairy Control Board Bhall be on the basis of the export tonnage of butter and cheese on the sliding scale of one ton of butter being equal to two tons of cheese. He advocated voting on a tonnage basis, because it «h all important to the men

engaged in the dairying industry that they should have the sole right to decide who should control their produce. They had heard a lot about the disfranchisement of suppliers, but it had to be borne in mind that the suppliers themselves elected the directors. Ihe motion was seconded by Mr Harding, who said the only sound basis was that those whom suppliers elected as directors should have the right to vote. A slid- , ,n o scale could be made to safeguard the rights of the small man. Mr Corrigan supported the resolution, and said it was absolutely necessary that the people who provided the funds should have a say as to how the board should be elected. The only fair basis was a tonnage basis, and all that was asked for wa° that every man supplying a factory should be placed on a fair basis of representation. Mr J. R. Barnett, Linkwater, advanced tho 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 the suppliers. Mr T. Moss (Newman) said that in listening to some 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 ow r n suppliers had come to him and said: “We 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, and the question was resolved into a motion in favour of the directors having a direct vote and an amendment for a vote for compulsory suppliers. A division upon this issue resulted in the amendment being defeated by 558 to 212 votes, the individuals in the hall voting as follows:—101 against and 07 for the amendment. The resolution was then carried on the voices. Mr J. B. Gow (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 the motion, and said the chairman had stood up against an unscrupulous propaganda. The board had saved the companies many hundreds of pounds. The resolution was carried with only one dissentient. Mr Grounds was cheered as he rose to reply. He thanked all concerned for the assistance given him. There was no question as to the course of the board. The fact that they were getting nearer to their task had not deterred them in their determination to see it through. He refuted the misrepresentations that said had been against the so-called Bolshevist or Socialistic policy of the board. Developments had to be kept pace with. There were dangers, and the opponents of the board who had been inflaming the public mind would have to take care lest they created a more serious position by adding still another fire to those which had already been kindled. The board wished to serve the industry. When they had done that to the degree desired they would be satisfied that the board had gained its point. It was decided that a committee should place the resolutions of the meeting before the Prime Minister. At the conclusion of the meeting the chairman w'as accorded a vote of thanks, and the singing of “For he’s a jolly good fellow” followed. THE DISSENTIENTS. OPPOSING MOTIONS CARRIED. WELLINGTON, April 28. Those dissenting to the conduct of the meeting to-day held a separate meeting, saying they had stood enough. They claimed numerical foree of the exodus was 83. They represented 115 factories, 21,264 tons of butter, 11,693 tons of cheese, and 0 per cent, of t.ie producers of the Dominion. • Motions were carried protesting against the mode of electing Mr Grounds as chairman, and favouring the single ward system of election, each delegate having one vote for every butter and cheese factory represented by him, as from the dairy division list of 1925. Mr W. A. Veiteh was voted to the chair, and the meeting endeavoured to arrange a conference with Mr Coates, who, however, said he could not see them until the other meeting had concluded. The delegates will wait on the Prime Minister to-morrow. DISSENTING DELEGATES’ VIEWS. WELLINGTON, "April 29. The delegates who withdrew irom the conference of representatives of dairy companies yesterday waited on tI.J Prime Minister this afternoon, and. on their behalf, Mr W. A. Veiteh, M.P., who presided at the counter Conference, handed the following statement to Mr Coates:— “1. When the dairy conference was first called by Mr Grounds he issued a circular to those connected with the industry, stating that the conference would appoint its own chairman and decide for itself the method of voting at the conference. This was only right and proper, but at a later date Mr Grounds issued a seepnd circular, stating that he would be chairman of the conference, and that the voting at the conference would bo c a tonnage basis. It was obvious that any such method of voting would not reflect the views of the industry. “2. When the roll was called it was ascertained that there were 357 factories represented at the co. Terence. > It was the la.gest meeting of the whole industry that had ever been hold, and represented approximately 50,000 suppliers. “3. As a body we knew that we represented 43 per cent, of those suppliers, and yet, on the unfair tonnage basis of voting at the conference, wo only carried 28 per cent, of the voting strength of the conference. 4. In the first place we challenged the chair purely on a question of principle. Mr Grounds refused to accept any motion along these lines, or to submit the matter to a vote at the conference. When he was asked why he had changed method of leaving the conference to fix its own chairman and the method of voting he threw the tactics on the Minister of Agriculture. It is for the Minister of Agriculture to say whether he accepts the responsibility or not.

“5. The first division of the conference arose on the question of electing the members of the board on the democratic principle of one producer one vote. W e objected to the conference voting on this question on a tonnage basis, and, when Mr Grounds refused to accept any motion determining the svstern of voting at the conference, we withdrew in a body and established a conference of our own in a separate building. “6. Our conference consisted of 86 repre* sentatives from 113 factories, comprising 1 21,204 tons of butter, 11,693 tons of cheese, ' and 21,688 suppliers, or, in other word*,, 43 f per cent, of the suppliers who were repre- • sented in Wellington. “7. We passed the following resolution’ unanimously:— That this meeting of representatives of the dairy companies expresses its emphatio desire that the members of the Dairy Control Board be elected on the single ward system, with six wards for the North Island and three wards for the ‘ South Island, each one producer to have * one vote. “8. The delegates who remained at the : Town Hall represented 57 per cent, of j suppliers, but it was not long before they I came to loggerheads among themselves on j the question of the individual supplier’s j vote, and a division was taken. Details of the voting of the division on a supplier's basis are not yet available, but a very largo, section tfas strongly in favour of the voting’ being left in the hands of the individual suppliers. Others again admitted that the J principle of the producers exercising an individual vote was right and proper, but difficult to carry out in practice. It is evident, therefore, that the delegates to Wellington, representing at least 70 per cent, of the suppliers of the Dominion, were in favour of the individual producer exercising his vote for members of the board. Our section, representing 43 per cent, of the suppliers, stands for the principle of one producer one vote. At least another 30 per cent, are strongly in favour of individual suppliers exercising their votes, but on a. > different basis, while the remaining dele- 1 gates, representing not more than 25 per/ cent, of the suppliers, are in favour of factory directors electing the board. “9. In spite of the foregoing, Mr Grounds is to-day presenting the Prime Minister with a resolution asking for legis- > lation for individual factory directors to elect the Control Board on a tonnage basis, j “10. Mr Grounds received early in the morning a cable from Mr lorns, one of \ the board’s representatives in London, but j it was not read to the conference until late j in the afternoon. It was as follows:—“£ \ consider it advisable to retain the direct . individual producer’s vote for candidates on. ! the ward system in order to retain the* producers’ interest in the board.’ j “11. We maintain that individual sup- j pliers must be allowed to exercise their \ vote for their own representative on tho J Control Board, and that there is only ono sound and democratic method of voting— ) namely, one producer, one vote.” After a considerable discussion Mr Coates said that the matter would have to bo 1 dealt with by Cabinet and a Bill afterwards submitted to the House. CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS. WELLINGTON, April 29. ’ Representatives of the dairy industry wlio remained throughout the proceedings at yesterday’s conference, which was held in Wellington to discuss the method of electing members of the Dairy Export Control Board, waited upon the Prime Minister (the Right Hon. J. G. Coates), j and the Minister of Agriculture (the Hon. j O. J. Havvken) to-day, to put before them j the resolutions passed by the conference. ; The Prime Minister stated that legisla- j tion would be drafted giving expression / to the desires of those who remained at 1 the jonference. This legislation would ) first of all be submitted to Cabinet for consideration. He was unable to say ex- 1 actly whether Cabinet agreed to the j method of election on a toui.age basis, j The suggested representations of the depu- j tation w'ould be considered, and so also j would those of the opposing section at j yesterday’s conference who were to wait A upon him later in the day. # j Mr Coates declared that if the farming i community and the butter producers de- | sired to handle their concerns ivithin the j meaning of the Act passed by Parlia- j ment, and were sufficiently unanimous- to bring that into effect, it seemed to him j that was their business. All he could 1 do was to ask them to use ordinary com- j mercial judgment and commercial practice, ' which he hoped would be perfectly fair. 1 to everyone concerned, and, in addition, they should endeavour to see that the community itself was not disturbed by any 1 action that might be taken in the light/ of the decision they had made. MOVE BY MALCONTENTS. WELLINGTON, /pril 29. M The general opinion in Wellington to- f day is that the malcontents made a tactical! mistake in leaving yesterday’s meeting of the representatives of the dairy industry, j Had they stayed the voting on crucial point# would have been close. Speaking at one of the deputations to-day 1 the Hon. O. J. Hawken (Minister of Agri- \ culture) expressed his regret that yesterday’# j meeting had not proceeded in unison, as f there were some matters on which he would ’ have liked a larger vote and a clearer ex- j pression of opinion. He recognised that / the export tonnage proposal was worthy of consideration. The main point was in re- ( gard to the individual vote, and for that; reason ho wished that the conference cou!d\ have held together. There was a division) point as to the directors having the vote,/ of opinion among the dairvmen on the! and that was a matter which would have) to be taken into consideration. He was satisfied, however, that those who remained' at the conference knew their own minds,/ although he did not know about those who had lett. In conclusion, the Minister saidql “There has been a great deal of unnecessary, agitation in regard to this matter of con/ tool. It seems to me that there are a great many outsiders, and some who are not greatly concerncxUin the dairy business# who have interfered, and a great deal of confusion has occurred. The position is a complicated one, but at the same time I feel sure that, after the meeting of yesterday, the position will be cleared up, and that we will be able to judge from that , meeting what is best to be done in regard to legislation.’* / The Prime Minister made it clear tha* there would be legislation during the coming session. The main point at issue apparently will bf the method proposed in the election

the board, and on this there is a divergence of opinion. At the conclusion of the meeting in the Town Hall, after the opposition had left, there was a unanimous endorsement of the policy of absolute control, and the board and its chairman were cheered again and agaiti, after which those pre.-ent sang, “For they are jolly good fellows.” Though there was opposition from the opponents of control to Mr Grounds being chairman, it must be admitted that he conducted a meeting that had in it from the beginning elements of discord, with much ability and strict, impartiality. It now remains for Parliament to have the final say.