REPRESENTATION OF WORKERS ON DAIRY BOARD ADVOCATED

Wanganui Chronicle, 29 October 1948, Page 6

REPRESENTATION OF WORKERS ON DAIRY BOARD ADVOCATED

PARLIAMENTARY BLDGS., Night (PA).—A suggestion that dairy farm workers and dairy factory workers might be given direct representation on the Dairy Board, was made by Mr. A. C. Baxter (Govt., Raglan) during the second reading of the Debate in the House of Representatives today on the Dairy Produce Amendment Bill. He invited members of the Opposition and also leaders of the dairy industry to consider his suggestion and comment on it.

The debate was resumed bv Mr. E. B. Corbett (Opp., Egmont). who said when the Government representative on the reconstituted board was appointed consideration should be given to the South Island, which, under the present elective system, had only one member. Mr. Corbett said he would like to see a more satisfactory method of selection of the industry s representatives on the Dairy Products Marketing Commission. At present, the industry could nominate two persons for each vacancy that fell due, leaving the Government to make a final selection. It would be more democratic if the directors of dairy companies could vote directly for one appointee as required.

DAIRY BOARD’S WORK. The Dairy Board had given general satisfaction in recent years, but an exception was that it had not been irank enough about the recent negotiations on the price adjustments. The industry, on proved costs, asked lor an increase of 3d a lb. butterfat and the Commission finally gave .84d. That was causing the producers some uneasiness and the Dairy Board should now be able to throw light on representations that were made and on basis of this disappointing decision. Mr. Baxter said it was open to question whether two separate authorities—the Dairy Board and the Dairy Products Marketing Commission—were necessary. That was a matter for the farmers themselves to decide, not for the Government. Dairy farm workers were vitally concerned in tne price of butterfat and were they not entitled to some say in fixing the price of butterfat on which their wages depended? There was a case for reasonable worker participation in the industry, not worker domination. Probably in no other industry were the relationships between employer and employee better than in farming. . Dairv factory workers die! not depend in the game way on the price of butterfat, but their part in the industry was vital, and it would not be beyond the- dignity of the industry to* grant farm and factory workers joint representation on the Dairy Board.

The dairy section of Federated Farmers was also entitled to direct repreenstation on the board, as had already been sought Mr. S. W. Smith (Opp., Hobson) agreed that two authorities in the industry were not needed. Had the Dairy Board been revised some years ago, as the industry wanted, there would have been no need for the Dairy Marketing Commission which was forced on the industry by the Government. Dairy farm workers had a right to a say in the fixing of their incomes, but they exercised that right during the negotiations over their wages and butterfat prices and took the wages agreed on into account as a cost factor. It was, therefore, doubtful if there was any need for direct representation of farm workers on the Dairy Board. Factory workers similarly were heard during the Arbitration Court negotiations on their wages, and that appeared sufficient. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Cullen) replying, said some dissatisfaction had been voiced at this year’s butterfat prices, but that was solely a matter for the Dairv Marketing Commission. The Bill was read a second time.