FARMERS' UNION POLICY

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22465, 28 July 1938, Page 9

FARMERS' UNION POLICY

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TRESS. Sir, —In “The Press” to-day an attack, extravagantly penned, has been made upon the Farmers’ Union over the name of H. Tritt. As lam writing this reply in defence of the union, I do not see why I should not remain incognito. Needless to say. Mr Mulholland has many more important duties than answering such letters as Mr Tritt’s. Divorced from its wordy verbiage, exaggerations, etc., the letter accuses the union of supporting the National Party. It is true that the policy of the National Party is more in line with the union planks than is the Labour platform, but it is a fact that the union did not adopt those planks just to please the National Party. The reverse is nearer the truth, as the union adopted many of its planks before the other party was thought of. What are the vested interests that Mr Mulholland desires to restore contrary to the national interests? Did not Mr Savage, as well as other Ministers. say on various occasions that he would welcome the advent of fresh capital from England into our industries. Is that prospective capital what Mr Tritt calls vested interests? The assertion that either Mr Mulholland or the Farmers' Union supports high interest rates could be called grossly incorrect. . „ I read the leading article in The

Press” which is referred to, and have this to say. A section of the community says that various subsidies plus exchange make up for the innatea level of costs that farmers labour under. The Farmers’ Union strongly contests that view, and wants an exact balance drawn up. The result would be useful in assessing the compensated price, although obviously no claim could be made for arrears, a tariff inflicted at the time of the Maori War, as “The Press” said, but still in force to-day, should be taken account of • , . 0 Yes, the union does stand for the freehold as against the leasehold, but considers that either is infinitely preferable to the one that the Communist Party upholds, i.e., nationalised collective farms, such as are held in Russia. In passing, it is worth while noting that there are farms still privately held in Russia and that in Production they are well ahead of the collective farms, which appear to be infected with sabotage and consequent purges, neither being conducive to production. , _ T . It is true that the Farmers Union is against fixed prices, also fixed costs, but while the latter are fixed, it recognises that its policy cannot be entirely put into operation; in fact, the time is fast approaching under rising costs legislation when all farm exports win have to be heavily subsidised. Now I have fairly answered Mr Tritt’s numerous questions, and I have a few to put to him. When he referred to Mr Mulholland's “squirming retreat” over the potato business, did he know that at the combined meeting of potato growers held recently in Ashburton a vote of confidence and thanks was unanimously carried. Does he know that Mr Lee Martin claims that the new dairy tribunal recently granted is enabled to cover the same principles as the compensated price pirn? .. nlm In conclusion, the Farmers Union has boon well and truly in the limelight of late. It holds its conferences in the open with representatives ot the press present, which makes n an easy mark for writers like Mr Trilt.—Yours, etc., N>Z-F<U . July 23, 1938.