THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14821, 12 November 1913, Page 8

THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE.

When the Leader of the Opposition, in discussing tho Board of Agriculture Bill, said that ".New Zealand ehonld "not look to Ireland for advancement "in agricultural matters," he doubtless imagined that ho was speaking as a patriot. >*o sensible man thinks much of the "patriotism" which takes the form of the self-oomplacency that Is too stupid to learn from others; and, in any event, Sir Joseph Ward.demonstrated nothing but that he is quite inexcusably ignorant. Wβ had imagined that everyone knew any rate something of the world-famous and magnificent work accomplished by the great Irish Agricultural Organisation Society. If he will make some enquiries, he will be astonished, and, we trust, filled also with admiration; and perhaps he may sco that, curiously enough, the Bill which he dislitfes contains something like the germ of a New Zealand move,ment towards greater agricultural efficiency, not at all unlike the movement which has already transformed rural Ireland. The. opposition which the Bill is encountering in the House is not very serious, but it is a little surprising. Nobody doubts that the State's interest in agriculture will be rendered greatly more effective than it is by the creation of a Board of twelve practical i agriculturists to advise the Minister. That tho Agricultural Department, as it is now managed, is woefully wasteful and extremeny ill-managed, may be denied by members liko Mr Buddo, but the Public Service Commissioner, in the lengthy report he presented to Parliament, was almost unable to find i words to describe the state of muddle- ! raent and inefficiency to which tho Department had been brought by a succession of "Liberal" Ministers. ,J Tho " organisation of tho Department is "about tho last which should, have " been adopted' , ; "a policy of excessive "centralisation, which can only be de- " scribed as calculated to result in. a ,: minimum efficiency at a maximum "expenditure"; it is not understood "'on what supposed principle the i " present organjsation of the DopartI " mc-nt was arranged"—these are some of the comments with which the Commissioner intersperses his analysis of

the Department's methods. Instead of welcoming the assistance which the Board will render to agriculture, some members of the Opposition appear to imagine that the gain wilj be a loss, simply because Mr Massey makes the proposal. Criticism is to be welcomed. Mr Massey has the cause of agriculture so much at heart that he would be glad

of any helpful suggestions; but it is quite absurd to suggest, as Sir Joseph Ward, Mr Witty, and Mr Forbes suggested, that by leaving the nomination to the A. and P. Societies the Government irill secure the neglect of the interests of the fruit-growers, horticulturists, dairymen, flaxmillers, poultry-keepers, and so on. There is no warrant for such a singular assumption. The A. and P. Societies are not.

if Mr Witty will permit us to differ from him, composed of stupid men; they are composed of and controlled by men who realise fully the value and importance of every form of agriculture and rural industry, and there need be little fear that they will not nominate the right men—men who will give the Minister the benefit of expert knowledge and long practical experience, and a live interest in the promo-

tion of greater efficiency in the utilisation of the soil. The Metropolitan Show comes very appropriately to remind the "public of the extent to which tho prosperity of all of us is dependent on tho rural industries, and tnere should be nothing but applause for a proposal which will increase the efficiency of a Department which it is impossible for one man to control if it is to be of tho greatest possible use to the Dominion.