The Press THURSDAY, JULY 13, 1972. Mr Begg’s retirement

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 32967, 13 July 1972, Page 12

The Press THURSDAY, JULY 13, 1972. Mr Begg’s retirement

By declining nomination to continue as president of Federated Farmers, Mr A. C. Begg adds a dramatic touch to the campaign by some woolgrowers against the legislation to establish a Wool Marketing Corporation to buy all raw wool in this country. Mr Begg has said that he does not like the plan; but that is not the essence of his complaint. He believes that most woolgrowers favour the scheme, but he complains that the farmers who object to the complete acquisition of the wool clip have not been given a fair hearing. Many of these farmers have now formed their own organisation to protest against the Wool Board’s scheme. The Wool Board itself represents all woolgrowers. Six of its eight members are elected by the growers, whose views might have been established by way of a referendum. Instead, the meat and wool section of Federated Farmers has been the main channel through which opinion was sought by the advocates of the scheme. The consideration of a new plan for handling the New Zealand wool clip has lasted a long time. It has been brought to a conclusion too rapidly for factions to mobilise their forces; but not too rapidly for farmers to reach their own individual conclusions on the evidence of experience and long, well-publicised discussion and inquiry’. If some farmers, with a dissenting view, have not had their reservations formally represented to the Government the blame must lie heavily with the Federated Farmers’ organisation itself. Other dissenters might, of course, not be members of Federated Farmers. Federated Farmers, or any other body speaking for the growers, still has the opportunity to make submissions on the legislation. Mr Begg himself could have done so as president if he had ensured that the extent of dissent and its nature had been established through his organisation. Mr Begg does not think that a referendum of woolgrowers would settle the dispute. After a further and intense review of the proposals, a referendum might produce an informed and democratic result. There would still be dissenters if the plan were supported in a poll. The problem that the Government faces now would not be altered very much. The question would still be whether the legislation could be amended so that, even for a trial period, alternative outlets for the clip could be left open. The board is now against partial change; and this is the essence of the dispute. Since the board is convinced that total acquisition of the clip is the best way to help all growers in the long run, it will not be easy for the board to accept a half measure that would please some and, in its view, diminish the benefit to alt