FARMERS’ UNION AND POLITICS

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 260, 28 July 1921, Page 8

FARMERS’ UNION AND POLITICS

CONFERENCE DECISION SEPARATE PARTY NOT WANTED By 30 votes io 7 the New Zealand Farmers’ Union Conference yesterday carried the following motion, proposed bv Mr. AV. A. Banks (Rangiora): “That the formation of another political jarty at present is inadvisable.” The motion found its chief opponents in the Auckland delegates. Mr. AV. AV. Mulholland (North Canterbury) seconded the motion. Mr. R. D. Duxfield (Auckland) said that the farmers had not confidence in themselves. He quoted Australian and Canadian experience in support of his contention that a farmers’ political party could be a great power. If the farmers put up candidates, ho said, those men would know at once where they were. They would not feel, like some other farmer members, that they must steer a middle course in Parliament. “AA’e haven’t been able to get all the farmers to ioin tho Farmers' Union,” said Mr. F. Mills (Taranaki), who considered this to be the strongest argument against an attempt by tho Farmers’ Union to form a farmers’ political party. Mr. J. G. Anderson (Pelorus) opposed the formation of a farmers’ party. In his own district, he said, it would mean disruption of the union. Mr. H. Morrison (Masterton) supported the motion. "We may not have been doing as well as wo should have been, but we should have been doing much worse if we hud gone into party politics.” he said. Mr. AV. D. Lysnar, M.P. (Gisborne) wished to know what incentive tho anion had at the present time to enter into a fight. Did not the farmers, ho asked, consider that they had to-day better representatioTl in the House than ever before? It was quite possible that some cause for entering into party politics would arise; but at present no quarrel existed. Mr. J. A. Macpherson (Oamaru) thought that if the time spent upon diseussioDs like the one that was procoeuing were given to uniting all the farmers* associations, there would lie no need for anv fanners' political party. Captain Colbeck (Auckland) pointed to the Labour Party. He inferred from its career that the farmers would not succeed in having desired effected if they merely went on passing remits. and did not return members from a farmers’ party. Most of the farmers who had been returned to he said, had proved "dumb dogs.” The president: Is that parliamentary language? Captain Colbeck repeated the expression carefully, so that the chairman should not mistake his adjective for another than was unparliamentary. He was permitted to say “dumb.” Mr. D. Jones, M.P. (Kaiapoi) said that it was very easy to make sweeping assertions unsupported by evidence. To accuse the farmer-members of thinking only of votes in their own electorates, and not of the principles they were supposed to stand for, was wrong. J. he country members were doing their If the farmers wished to see some eight or nine men ruling the country by standing apart ready to upset this or that, and sell themselves to one part? or another, they were advocating what was contrary to the principles of democracy. The man who sat in Parliament in the farmers’ interests alone, and not in the interests of the whole people was not doing his duty. So far ns the Labour Party was concerned, what had it obtained? A voice: Obtained butter below tho cost of production. Mr. Jones: They have notA voice: The commissioner said so. Captain Colbeck: They obtained hides below export value. Mr. Jones: That was not the Labour Partv. , . . Captain Colbeck: It was pandering to Labour. . Mr. Jones said that to a. member of the House any assertion that the Labour Party had control was laughable. “Get all the fanners in the Dominion organised, and then talk about matters like this.” he concluded. Mr C. K. AVilson (Auckland) opposed the motion. It was foolish, he said, to imagine that the fanners wanted a farmers’ party to destroy other parties. There were occasions on which Mr. Massey "slipped off the straight path” because he "had not a spur there to keep him on.” The farmers had no thought of putting Mr. Massey out, but was he going to be in power ever? ~ Mr Bowinar (Southland) said that some'of* those present live to be surprised at the farmers lack of i.-uth in themselves. In the south tho farmers had ioined together in the last election. and succeeded as they had never done before. He was instructed to vote for the motion, and it was all very well to be on the aide of the majority; but ho believed that the record of the vote on the motion would lie a source of surprise to farmers in later years. Mr A. E. Harding (Auckland) believed that the time was more than ripe for the formation of a farmers PjJ r pAVhen the discussion of P? 11^? 1 in the union had been forbidden, the union had become comatose, and had not revived until the ban was raised Co-operation in political aflairs would put the farmers far ahead of their pr sent position. If they pulled togethei in politics they would obtain what was in the interests of the farmers, and therefore of the people as a whole. Mr G. Sbeat (Dunsandel) was convinced that an attempt io form a farmers’ partv would "blow the union, right out” The farmers party would be "between somewhere and nowhere-a voice crying in the wilderness. Mi-. Banks, in replying, claimed flint the farmers had never been so well represent™! Wore. /Vhore would the farmers be to-day. he asked, if the .. to™ or the Liberal Party got into P °The motion was carried, as stated above, bv 30 votes to /. Mr K B. Goodall (Nelson) moved: "That in the opinion of this conference tho rules should be amended, so that when the time is opportune the union will be able to take an active part in the country’s iwlitics.’” oo , This motion was carried In - votes to 19.