COUNTRY QUOTA

Press, Volume LXXXI, Issue 24740, 4 December 1945, Page 4

COUNTRY QUOTA

Direct Action By Farmers VIEWS OF DOMINION PRESIDENT

If sectional strife in New Zealand continued it might “even'go to the extent of civil war,” said Mr W. W. Mulholland, Dominion president of Federated Farmers, referring yesterday to the recent threatened direct action by farmers as a protest against the abolition of the country quota. Mr Mulholland was speaking on political questions affecting farmers at a lu.ncheon given by the National Club. “It is important that we realise where class differentiation is taking us,” he said. “If it continues—and it looks as if the Government intends it to continue and accelerate—there must be an explosion. The people must see that it stops.” People who had gone to the extremes of constitutional action could not be blamed for considering direct action when they saw that small sections of the community could force their will on the Government by physical action, he continued. If miners and waterside workers went on strike, their action had an immediate effect on the whole community. It had been suggested that farmers should refuse to take their stock and produce to the markets. If farmers were induced to take that action it would be through bad leadership, as the immediate effects would be felt only "by the farmers themselves. A sudden cessation of production was not possible, Mr Mulholland said, but what was possible, and far more serious, was a slowing down of production. It could be done in an organised ’way; but he was afraid it was not going to be organised but , would be brought about by legislation the Government was enacting. If farmers took organised economic action to reduce production it would not begin one day and end the next. It would have to be taken for years before it could impress itself. Organised economic action would mean suffering and severe economic conditions for at least five years. It would be followed by the painful process of rebuilding the productive capacity of the country. Changes In Electoral System. Farmers suffered by the electoral amendment legislation no more than any other section of the community. Mr Mulholland said. The legislation not only abolished the country quota, but made other cha’nges in the electoral system which were perhaps far more serious. He referred particularly to the provision for the use of adult population figures in determining electoral boundaries. The whole question should be regarded as one for New Zealand, not just a matter for the country and much less a matter for faripers only. A party in grave danger of losing power had searched every means, including those of electoral procedure, to give itself every possible chance of winning the next election. That in itself was a- grave wrong: but the way in which the legislation was brought about was much more serious. The Government had, by means which could only be described as “deceitful,” introduced legislation without giving the electors any opportunity to examine it. "The Government deceived the organisation with which I am associated, and deceived it by actual words.” Mr Mulholland continued. About the middle of June, Federated Farmers had asked Mr Nash what the Government’s interdiqps were regarding the countryquota. One or two back bench Labour members had previously made statements about the abolition of the country quota. The Acting-Prime, Minister had replied that he was unable to state what action would be taken, and had added that no decision had been made and that as soon as it was made it would be publicly announced. When Parliament met, no reference to the legislation had been made in the Speech from the Throne. Mr Nash was written to and asked whether this indicated that the legislation would not be introduced. Mr Nash replied that it was not usual to enumerate all proposed legislation in the Governor-General’s speech, snd added that he had no further information about the country quota. Towards the end of July a deputation had again asked Mr Nash to state the Government’s intentions. Again Mr Nash had replied that no decision had been reached, and that any decision would be publicly announced. “On the eve of the Labour Day holiday the legislation was introduced, and as soon as' the House resumed it was rushed through hurriedly and so that very little of the debate was heard on the air,” continued Mr Mulholland, adding that he had handled the documents he had mentioned and had seen Mr Nash’s signature on them. Adijlt Population Figures Referring to the provision for the use of adult population figures in determining electorates, Mr Mulholland said it was difficult to get a correct interpretation of what the_ amendment would mean. It was said that in rural areas there would be 100 voters to 163 of the population, and in urban areas the ratio would be 100 voters to 145 population. He did not_ know whether the urban areas mentioned included- both cities and towns. , The changed boundaries would compress city electorates for no other reason than “to save Government skins." Tire country quota was introduced to maintain a balance of political power between town and country. A city population had much greater political influence than a country population of the same size because of its ease of association. It was in the interests of the whole community that a balance between rural and urban electorates should be maintained. Mr Mulholland said he knew that a number of city people were disappointed that farmers had not taken more militant action to show their disapproval of the legislation. A fight between farmers and the rest of the community was not desirable, but he thought it was what the Government would like to have seen, “The fact that a large section of the community who have been the bulwark of law and order considered taking direct action is a far greater condemnation of the Government than any words of mine," he added.