Wool Referendum Opposed

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31764, 22 August 1968, Page 26

Wool Referendum Opposed

A proposal that moves be made for a referendum among farmers on the buyingin proposals of the Wool Marketing Study Group received no support from the meat and wool section of North Canterbury Federated Farmers yesterday.

Moving that a referendum be held, the delegate from the Cust-West Eyreton branch (Mr J. L. Lewis), said his branch felt that growers were entitled to express their view. This was the only democratic way of deciding the matter.

When Mr H. M. Stevens (Cheviot) suggested that at the time of a referendum, growers should receive a pamphlet giving points for and against the proposal, the chairman (Mr A. F. Wright) asked: Who was to say what were the points for and against the proposal.

Mr D. M. Foster (Darfield) opposed the suggestion for a referendum, saying that one could mail circulars, hold

meetings, and still there would be farmers who would show little interest.

In spite of what Federated Farmers did, it would be very difficult to make farmers well informed. “How can farmers be expected to give a proper vote on the issue?” he asked. . Mr M. S. Murchison (high country branch) agreed, saying that in the event of a referendum a man with 100 sheep would have as strong a vote as a man with 10,000 “I have grave doubts about the value of a referendum,” said Mr A. L. Mulholland. “With little knowledge of the issue by the rank and file of farmers it would be a useless vote. We have well informed men at the head of our farmer organisations, and we should show some confidence in them.” Mr Mulholland said that unless the committee, which is studying the Wool Marketing Study Group’s report, brought down a clear and concise view, any referendum would be a waste of time. Chance To Object If farmers did not like the recommendation to be made in November, they would

have the opportunity to object, said' Mr E. W. Turrell. Mr B. H. Palmer (Hawar-den-Waikari), who is a staunch advocate of the study group’s proposals, said that of the 6000 farmers in Canterbury, 4000 had 1500 sheep or fewer. A mixed farmer in the South Island obtained 22 per cent of his income from wool; a high countryman received 74 per cent from wool. Half the Dominion’s farmers produced 80 per cent of the national wool clip. If there was a referendum, 20 per cent of the farmers would have 50 per cent of voting power. “Are you going to have a system of one man one vote, or a system calculated on the number of sheep?” he asked. “We are assuming a farmer is an international wool seller; that he knows the trend of the market, and that he knows all about freighting problems. “We are assuming that he understands the thinking of the 20 members of the Wool Marketing Study Group. “If you ask for a referendum with one man one vote, you are assuming the farmer is a man of super judgment. Why do we have leaders? A

referendum would be quite stupid,” Mr Palmer said. Mr P. G. Morrison (Sheffield) said Federated Farmers would have to decide what it was going to have a referendum on. As yet, it was not known what recommendations the marketing committee would make, or whether it would make any. Mr V. S. Shadbolt: The auction system is foremost in farmers’ minds.

“The idea of a referendum is ridiculous,” said Mr A. E. Williams (Ohoka). “You have had men working for three years on it. Now you have a committee reporting on a committee. After that, you want to throw it back to a crowd of cookies who don’t know what they are voting about If you want to kill democracy give people the vote on something they know nothing about.” The meeting then rejected the remit; also a remit that the proposal for a referendum be referred to branches.