QUESTION OF NAME.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 65, Issue 43, 30 November 1944, Page 4

QUESTION OF NAME.

NEW FARMERS’ ORGANISATION. . A _ i AUCKLAND UNION’S ACTION. (P.A.) AUCKLAND, November 29. A sensation was caused in Farmers’ Union Executive circles by the registration, by the Auckland group, of the title chosen for the proposed combined primary producers’ organisation. A joint meeting of the special committee representing the New Zealand Sheepfarmers’ Federation and the New Zealand Farmers’ Union on Juty 20 agreed that there should be a united organisation to he called the United Farmers’ Federation of New Zealand. On October 30 the name of the “United Farmers’ Federation of New Zealand (Auckland province)” was registered by the Auckland group headed by Mr H. M. Rushworth (president of the Auckland Union). The reason given for the registration is that this Avas a step toward the protection of the assets of the Auckland Farmers’ Union Executive, Avliich has trading interests.

The proposed national body is noAV faced AVitli the job of selecting a new title.

“I have not the slightest desire or intention to lead a. revolt of Auckland farmers,” said Mi* Rushworth. Those who Avere notv clamouring for unity, he said, were the very ones who during recent months had done their best to divide and Aveaken farmers. Mr Rushworth explained that the present position Avas that there were the NeAV Zealand Farmers’ Union and the New Zealand Farmers’ Union (Auckland Province), two independent bodies. The members of the latter body, however, Avere also members of the New Zealand Union. “The registration of tho United Farmers’ Federation of New Zealand (Auckland Province) Avas certainly not intended to block the registration of the United Farmers’ Federation of NeAV Zealand,” continued Mr Rushworth, “The Auckland body can see no reason why the registration of the NeAV Zealand body should not be proceeded with. I Avas elected as Auckland president by the Auckland provincial conference, and I consider it my duty to those who elected me to ensure that they will have some substantial say in the rules of the body to which it is proposed to commit its whole future policy, and to hand over its very considerable assets,” said Mr Rushworth.

“There is undoubtedly a very strong feeling in favour of one organisation, but the NeAV Zealand Fanners’ Union cannot hand its assets over to the pew organisation until authority is given by tlie New Zealand Conference. Similarly, Auckland assets cannot be handed over Avithout the authority of the Auckland conference, and that conference should not be committed beforehand to rules which it is beyond its power to alter. I suggest that farmers! reserve judgment until they fully understand the position.”