DAIRY CONTROL BILL.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIV, Issue 4628, 21 November 1923, Page 3

DAIRY CONTROL BILL.

DAIRY FARMERS’ MEETINGS. & ATTITUDE OF UNION. Meetings of branches of the Dairy Farmers’ Union have been held on 7 the. 1 Plains during the last few days to hear addresses by Mr T. C. Grace, the provincial organiser, on the attitude of the executive towards the Dairy Export Control Board. Mr Grace said that no doubt there was need for farmers to take more interest in their own affairs at« > present. It was not enough for .them to study production alone. The manufacture and disposal of dairy produce should also be considered. The Dairy Farmers’ Union had always been interested in dairy control, as it was one of the planks of its constitution." The union had welcomed ■ the Export Control Bill ,but it did not agret witli it altogether. There were loopholes and weakeness in it, he said. It was only right that the pro.should have the right to appoint the Control Board, and also that he should have the right of recall. As the result of a conference, continued the speaker, .the executive of the union had agreed upon and offered certain constructive suggestions, some of which had later been incorporated in the Bill. The executive ■ then gave, .the Bill its unqualified support. The Bill had become law, and the board had now to he elected. It was necessary to get the right men on the Board, and it was also necessary to have a means of scrutinising the board’s actions. The National Dairy Council had nominated a ticket. Mr Grounds, the- chairman of the council, and one of its nominees, had said that one of the board’s first jobs would be to have that part of the Bill doa’ing with the method of appointment repealed and the American college system substituted. It was -therefore, evident that the ticket resented democratic control. Under that system the producer would only have a say when he was electing nis factory directors. This was one of the reasons why the union had taken the step it did. The union had been invited to be present at the meeting National Dairy Council, but its delegate found that he could do nothing. The National Dairy Council had nominated its ticket and had indicated ' that any ciher nominations would be considered antagonistic. The union did-not object to the ticket, but jbjected to the action of the council. It had advocated the ward system as the only way by which producers could vote intelligently. Much objection had also teen»raised to the has,te in which the election was being held. The union had three courses open—neutrality, endorsement, and indepen- . dence. This was regretted, as there w‘;it no doubt that the ticket was n grqd one, though there were certain objections to some of the nominees. ■ These were not very serious, bur ■'“'there were probably men who could serve the interests of dairy farmers Abetter. In addition, the ticket had . not been nominated according to districts. To overcome'this lack of the v wa-d system, the Dominion Executive •- had, agreed to support men recommended by members of the executive from their various parts of the country. Thus the executive . members Who knew the members of the ticket in their district would judge. On November 23, the day after the nominations closed, a telegraph bailor would be held among the 16 mem- * hers of the executive. The president would count the votes and announce the result through the Press Association. Members of the union and all dairy farmers would be asked to support the ticket. If the efficiency of the board was lowered the blame would be on the council for its action. They had said “These are the men,” instead of saying “we recommend there men to you.’’ The question was a very vital one, as never before had ■j-sq much power been given to so few *®men. The legislation permitted a power of good pr evil to be done for the producer according to the quality of the men elected to the board. Th? union had tried to carry out the spirit of the Bill. The executive thought it was its duty Vo take a stand, and while realising that its action would antagonise some, one considered that had a neutral attkitude been adopted or the ticket been endorsed it would not have been worth its salt. A point to be remembered by voters was that they must vote for six men —no more, or no less —otherwise their vote wpuld be informal. This was one of the weaknesses of the Bill that the union ha-1 objected to. At the Turua meeting resolution? endorsing the action of the executive and urging it to do its best to have the ward system suybstituted for the present method were carried. At the other meetings no resolutions were passed other than votes of to the organiser for his addresses.