BATTLE OF THE WARDS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXII, Issue 19436, 23 October 1925, Page 5

BATTLE OF THE WARDS

SUBTERRANEAN CONFLICT. PRESSURE ON PARLIAMENT. WHY NOT LET THE INDUSTRY DECIDE. ('Published by Arrangement.) What is coming to be known as the “Battle of the Wards” is raging keenly at the present time between cooperative and combined proprietary and export interests in the dairy world. A tense subterranean conflict was fought in the dying hours of the session, with victory in that round to co-operation—in spite of a bad start. But the proprietary and export interests are keen fighters. They arc net done with yet. They are meeting today it is understood, to determine thfir future course of action. In all probability that course will be an assault, en masse upon Cabinet Ministers with a view to forcing a promise from them ere they have heard the co-operative side in full to give the 4 4 ward system” in the election of the dairy board next year. This central onslaught upon Ministers will be supplemented, it is anticipated, by organised sniping expeditions against all Parliamentary candidates with a view to se< aring from them in the heat of the election castiron commitments to the ward system. The failure, in spite of very carefully laid secret plans, to slip the ward system through unexpectedly in the dying hours of the session, proved a big disappointment to the interests concerned. “We thought we had put it over you this time,” was the candid confession made by one in the inner circle to a friendly opponent after the battle was over. The reason for all this fuss *about the ward system is not far to seek. It is wrapped up in the decision of the Dairy Produce Export Board to take absolute control over the marketing of all New Zealand export dairy produce as from August 1, 1926. This naturally conflicts with the interests of dairy 'agents, and proprietary organisations, and ever since the decision was made in February last, a definite campaign has been under way with the ultimate objective of so splitting the co-operative forces as to weaken the personnel of the board, and reverse or weaken the policies so far determined on. Two special organisations have been active in this direction, and each one has created a voluntary fighting fund by a levy upon the output of the particular factories interested. One of these organisations is proprietary, and the other embraces certain co-operative factories which, more or less, see eye to eye with proprietary interests. The financial interests involved are so keenly determined to effect a change that if all else fails, it is understood, they will undertake litigation in testing the decision of the Dairy Export Board to effect the market improvements thev had in view.

The agitation that has prevailed so I far, in connection with the ward system, has involved, it is claimed, only a small section of the dairy farming community, and no steps have been taken to counter the agitating activities of those desiring a change. Matters have, however, now reached such a state that the industry is waking up to the danger of the undermining work that has been in progress and I preliminary plans have already been ) made by the National Dairy Association for a general conference of all dairy factories representing the whole of the industry to meet in Wellington early next year and discuss the matter on broad national lines. The reason why a special rush campaign is now being made by well-or-ganised trade interests is plain. It is desired to have Cabinet Ministers and members of Parliament committed to a special course before the co-operative

section of the industry, which represents 90 per cent, of the total trade in- [ volved, wakens to the position and makes its voice heard. Such commit- « ments on the part of Ministers and members of Parliament would constitute a grave injury to the -whole dairy industry, which, it is contended, is entitled to some say in the manner in which so vital a reform as the method ] of electing the board shall be made. ; This is more particularly the ease, be- f cause Parliament itself is responsible 1 for the present difficulty, in that it ] changed the method of election origin- j ally proposed in the Dairy Export A»ct. ( That reform is advisable is admitted ] by both sides. The present system under which only one farmer out of three has voted is not considered satisfactory. But, the question is asked, would satisfaction be obtained by carving an unsatisfactory whole into nine separate parts. As a plain matter of fact, a large section of the industry considers that Ihe whole basis of election now provided is wrong. Facts and I figures rather support this view. One co-operative leader who has made a close investigation of the facts points out that the present basis inflicts grave injustice in that undue power is given those who sell the bulk of their produce upon the local market. A just system of business representation, it is I contended, gives voting power in proportion to financial risk and financial [ contribution. The facts show wide discrepancies. Auckland, for instance, I pays 42.8 per ccYit. of the board's revenue, but only exercises 31.9 per cent, of the voting power of the Dominion. Taranaki pays 24.2 per cent., but has only 11.4 per cent, voting power. Wellington pays 14.2 per cent., and has only 11.4* per cent, voting power. Hawke’s Bay pays 5.2 per cent., with 7.9 per cent, of voting power. In the South Island, Nelson, Marlborough and West Coast pay 3 per cent, of the board’s revenue, with 6 per cent, of the voting power. Canterbury contributes only 3.3 per cent, of the revenue, but has 13.6 per cent, of the Dominion’s voting power. Otago and Scotland pay 7.3 per cent, of the revenue, but are in a position to exercise 17.7 per cent. of the voting power. These discrepancies are repeated in the detailed areas of the North Island ward and the South Island ward. NORTH ISLAND WARD. Share of levy Present votpaid per cent, ing power per cent. Auckland 49.6 50.6 Taranaki 28.04 18.4 Wellington 16.3 18.2 Hawke’s Bay .. .. 6.162 12.8 SOUTH ISLAND WARD. Nelson, Marlborough and Westland . . 21.4 16.2 Canterbury 24.6 37.5 Otago and Southland .. 54.0 47.0 These facts reveal, it is contended, a very strong position —namely that the popular vote does not give power in harmony with financial contribution to the board’s activities. The explanation advanced is that Parliament has given a full vote upon the export board to those who are not entitled to it. Parliament has not allowed sufficiently for the volume of dairy produce sold on the local market in New Zealand. This oversight has thrown completely out of balance the voting basis. Before any question of big or small wards, council systems or anything else can be determined, it is urged that this voting basis must be established upon an equitable foundation. The local market in New Zealand absorbs annually approximately 15,000 tons of butter. Producers of that 15,000 tons, although they pay in respect of it nothing to the board, exercise- a full vote upon the board’s election, provided the factory they supply exports any produce at all. For instance, , a certain proprietary factory in Dunedin, by exporting five tons of butter carrying a levy of £2 18s 4d enfranchises 556 suppliers, to vote upon the export board’s election. Similarly

a Christchurch proprietary . company exporting four tons of butter, and paying a levy of £2 6s Bd, enfranchises 250 suppliers. The import and extent of this question of local supply is vastly greater than appears on the surface. It explains why Canterbury, with a big local market at its door, pays an export levy of only 3.3 per cent., but can vote 13.6 per cent, of the whole, and it explains why Taranaki, with big producers concentrating on export, pays 24.2 per cent, of the board’s revenue, but can exercise only 11.5 per cent, of voting power. It is a peculiarity of the industry that proprietary companies, speaking broadly, concentrate upon selling their produce on the local market. This is particularly the case in the South Island, where, out of 16 factories "with extensive local trade, 12 are proprietary. The 16 factories have 11,414 suppliers, but their export interests are only 4163 tons, an average of 7.3 cwt

per supplier, contrasted with the average export interest of 2 tons 2cwt of each co-operative producer in the North Island, and 13.3 cwt. of each co-operative producer in the South Island. Averaging the whole country, proprietary suppliers send forward for export 15cwt. per head. Co-operative suppliers send forward for export for the whole Dominion almost exactly two tons. The board derives its revenue from export produce only—it has no powci whatever over local sales. But the basis of voting laid down by Parliament is, it is contended, quite unfair in operation, and fails to give harmony between the levy paid to the board and the power of representation. Merely to carve the existing electoral areas into smaller sections would not mend matters; it would, on the contrary, throw certain areas directly into the power of proprietary organisations, by permitting intensive electioneering .methods, backed by weighty fighting funds. This, it is contended, explains the keenness of these organisations to force promises at this stage before the full significance of their move is detected by co-operative interests. Such, in broad outline, is the Battle of the Wards,” as assessed by close sides. On the one hand, proprietary and trade interests are fighting for a quick decision on definite points. Cooperative interests, recognising the unsatisfactoriness of the present position, ask that any change to be made shall be fully considered in all aspects so that once and for all the method of election may be determined on a satisfactory basis. All that they ask is that they shall.have a chance of going fully into the matter, and placing their views before a Parliament which will not have its hands tied beforehand to the chariot wheels of proprietary and trade interests.