FARMING AND POLITICS

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 206, 28 May 1938, Page 7 (Supplement)

FARMING AND POLITICS

There is to-day an unprecedented!?’ close relationship between farmers and the State; this is so within the Dominion and throughout the world. Both the nature and degree of relationship vary from country to country. In Russia, under a Communist dictatorship, the farmers have been forced to farm in huge collectivised farms, and their produce is purchase'! by the State, on much the same basis as New Zealand dairy produce is—at a fixed price determined solely by the Government. In other European nations the farmer preserves varying degrees of freedom, but frequently he is under very' strict supervision by officialdom.

in Britain there is an exceedingly close relationship between farmers and the State as to the marketing of products of the land. Duties, quotas and pools aro used to lift prices, that being the prime concern. All control is. exercised, after mutual consultation; there is nothing dictatorial in- that relationship.

Across the Atlantic in the United States, the depression brought a great influx of Government-into-farming, again to lift prices. The amazing spectacle was there seen of farmers being paid not to produce. A round-the-world survey shows again and again the close relationship that has grown between farming and Government. In Peru farmers are compelled by law to belong to the farmers’ union. In Australia, still nearer at hand, various controlling bodies largely regulate the price of farm products.

Ten years ago there was little of all this. Almost the world over farmers farmed and sold their products as they willed. Then came the great economic crisis of 1930-35, during which the agriculturalist suffered more severely than almost any other section of people. In his parlous state he had to be helped as much for others as for himself, indeed, had there been an even worse depression than then occurred, the rural population would have best survived it. - I

Of later years, in Europe, further impetus was given to controlling, assisting and expanding farm production by the desire for self-sufficiency of nations in the event of war.

Within our own country the world-wide trend is evident. Ten years ago farming had but modest concern with Government. There was a Department of Agriculture, maintained to extend farming knowledge and to grade produce exported. Legislation had been passed enabling producers themselves to exercise some control over their exports as, for example, with the meat and dairy boards. The State provided farming with certain credit facilities, such as State advances and rural credits. Wheat and some other products were aided by State intervention. The aid given here was in line with that given our secondary industries which did then and had for decades past enjoyed a large measure of protection by tariffs. The depression brought in New Zealand, as elsewhere, new problems. A major one was the threat of quotas. To combat‘these the Government had to make representations on behalf of the Dominion’s farming interests, as it did at Ottawa six years ago and has done since. Farming thus came within the sphere of national concern. Simultaneously arose the need for mortgage relief to keep farmers on the land, and legislation was passed to help in the weathering of a crisis.

Two and a half years ago there was a change of Government and Labour came to power, bringing a different ideology to bear upon our problems. Policies already followed, such as mortgage relief, overseas representation in marketing discussions by Ministers of the Crown, the general activities of the Department of Agriculture, the fostering of wheat-growing and action in several other matters of that kind were continued as before.

But new policies were Introduced and foreshadowed that break with all past conceptions as to farmers’ relationship with the State. The guaranteed price was one of these. An indirect one was the cost-raising influence of the new Government’s programme. A feared monopoly of transport is another. Finally, farmers must react to the Minister of Lands’? threat to the freehold of land tenure.

The State is represented by the Government of the day, but a Government is fundamentally a political party. So, in expressing any opinion whatsoever upon a piece of legislation, a farmers’ organisation cannot avoid expressing a political opinion.

A question now providing much discussion and thought for farmers is the guaranteed price versus the compensated price. Each happens to be sponsored by a political party. Are farmers to remain silent at Farmers’ Union meetings upon this subject, upon the freehold tenure, upon transport and upon a score of other vital matters? '

In resigning from the Farmers’ Union a few days ago a Wairarapa branch chairman advised that he did so as the union was no longer nonpolitical. As a body the Farmers’ Union is non-political and rightly so. That individual members, even by a large majority, should favour one political party or another does not alter that fact.

Those differing in outlook from general opinion would best serve their country by remaining in the union. There they may well exercise a moderating influence. That the Farmers’ Union should remain at all times a non-political organisation is greatly to be desired. But to be a worthwhile body the union willl have in the future, as in the past, often to oppose the policies of Governments. For good or ill, farming and politics are to-day in close association.