DAIRY CONTROL.

Waipa Post, Volume XXIV, Issue 1424, 8 November 1923, Page 5

DAIRY CONTROL.

REPLY TO MR GROUNDS.

“THE INNER CIRCLE.”

A prominent member of the Dairy Farmers’ Union, in referring to the statement made by Mr Grounds regarding the Dairy Control Board, said to a Manawatu Times reporter: “Mr Grounds denied that the Dairy Council selected the candidates for the Dairy Control Board over the heads of the producers, but he did not say whom the Council consulted before the ticket was selected. He qualifies his statement by saying that the various districts were asked to send in nominations, but as many failed to do so, the Dairy Council decided to select its own ticket. What does Mr Grounds mean by the various districts? Will Mr Grounds name any representative body, association, or dairy company outside the New Zealand Co-op. Dairy Company, Hamilton, that was asked to send in nominations? Did anybody outside the chosen few of the inner circle even know that the purpose of the Dairy Council’s meeting was to select a ticket? Mr Grounds says that the candidates selected provide fair representation of the dairy industry over the North Island. The ticket simply represents the New Zealand Co-op. Dairy Company and the Farmers’ Union with Mr Grounds thrown in. With regard to the nomination of Messrs Goodfellow and Motion, it is really immaterial who proposed these gentlemen. We have no particular objection to either of these gentlemen, but we strongly object to the hole and corner methods of the Dairy Council, for, after all, the Dairy Council is a body without any official status whatsoever. It was originally a sub-committee of the National Dairy Association, appointed to investigate marketing problems. It has usurped powers and functions to which it has no right, or claim. To give the public an idea as to the dual character of the Dairy Council, it need only be pointed out that out of the 21 members present at the last meeting, no fewer than 15 accepted nomination as candidates for the ticket. With regard to the statement that certain candidates on the Council’s ticket are members of the Meat Board, this was a mistake made by the president. It was stated that they were members of the Meat Council, not the Board. Dairy Farmers’ Union does not hide' the fact that it strongly disapproves of certain candidates on the Council’s ticket, and in a few days, after conferring with the various branches, will announce its own decision in the matter. The Dairy Farmers Union at least will see that the producers themselves will have a say.

“If Mr Grounds thinks that statements emanating from the Dairy Farmers’ Union have a political flavour, the Dairy Farmers’ Union has no hesitation in stating that the methods adopted by the Dairy Council strongly resemble the past methods of the National Dairy Association, and may provide a severe handicap to its nominees.”

THE' QUESTION OF PERSONNEL*.

Keen interest was taken in the question of the proposed personnel of the Dairy Produce Export Control Board at a meeting of suppliers’ committees of the New Zealand Co-op. Dairy Co., Ltd., held on Tuesday in Hamilton. Mr W. Claud Motion, vhairman of directors, presided over a representative attendance of 60 farmers. Mr Motion outlined the procedure which had been adopted by the Dairy Council in selecting the ticket to be nominated for election as representatives of the North Island on the Dairy Produce Export Control Board. The Dairy Council was a representative body which had been elected by a very full conference of dairy farm representatives some 18 months ago, and it considered it was the right body to give a lead to the dairy farmers of the country as to the best men to appoint upon the Board. Representatives of the Farmers’ Union and the Dairy Farmers’ Union were invited to be present, in consideration of the activity they had taken in promoting the measure. It had first of all been agreed that whoever was elected would receive the loyal support of all

members of the Dairy Council, because only in that way could unity k be secured. The representatives of the Dairy Farmers’ Union had asked that they be allowed to nominate two men exclusively on the Board, but the Council could not see its way to give them that exclusive right without doing the same thing to the Farmers’ Union, which would leave four of the six seats disposed of without the Dairy Council having any say in the matter. The Dairy Farmers’ Union were quite at liberty at the conference to nominate their two men just as others were nominated, and they would then have had to be subject to the selection of the Dairy Council. The Dairy Farmers’ Union, however, had not done that, although if they i had there was a possibility that their V* men may 'have been selected as representatives by the Dairy Council itself. The Dairy Council, in selecting the ticket, gave full weight to prodistribution, as it was estiVof the industry. An independent nomination might result in the whole half dozen men being returned from one part of the island, which would not be in the best interests of the industry. Consequently the decision of the Dairy Council to nominate a ticket, and request all dairy farmers who were keen for the success of the Dairy Produce Export Control Board was in the best interests of the industry as a whole. Every dairy farmer would be required to vote for six men in order to make his vote valid and the rPot.HViitinn nronosed bv Dairy Council was the best. Opponents of the measure already were trying to create difficulties tv spreading false statements. It had been stated in the

press that the men nominated had inl terests in the Meat Board or had seats on the Meat Board. That was quite false and he could give them a definite

assurance that none were on the Meat Board or had anything to do with the Meat Board. Those nominated were: Mr W. Grounds, North Auckland; Mr W. Goodfellow, Waikato; Mr K. Dalrymple, Bulls; Mr W. lorns, Maeterton; Mr IH. D. Forsythe, Taranaki; and himself. Mr Dalrymple had been chairman of the Rangitikei Dairy Company for several years. Mr lorns was chairman of directors of the Qtaraia Dairy Co., and Mr Forsythe was chairman of directors of the Eltham Dairy Co. They were all closely associated with the dairy industry, and hud no connection with the Meat Board. There would probably he other nominees by those whe were opposed to the Board or wished to see it divided, but producers would realise that the whole success of the measure rested upon the personnel of those elected. Personally he thought the prospects for the producer in the near future were very bright, and he thought those elected to the Board if they did their duty honestly and wisely could do a great deal for the whole industry. Voting papers would be distributed by the Government and full instructions given. Nominations would close on November 22, and the poll would close on December 13 at noon.

Mr A. J. Sinclair paid a tribute to the actions of Mr Mervyn Wells, of Cambridge, and Mr A. E. Harding, of North Auckland, in nominating Messrs Motion, Goodfellow and Grounds for election to the Board. There were naturally a number of aspirants to the positions, and he thought these gentlemen should be thanked for their services and their action in the matter.

After several questions as to procedure had been asked, and satisfactorily answered, Mr W. Boyd moved, and Mr J. W. Taylor seconded; “That this meeting approved of the candidates nominated by the Dairy Council, and those present pledge themselves to do all in their power to secure their return by asking suppliers to vote accordingly.” This resolution was carried unanimously and with applause.