COUNTRY PARTY

Evening Post, Volume CIII, Issue 144, 21 June 1922, Page 7

COUNTRY PARTY

EXPOSITION OE POnCYi

FARMERS' NEUTRALITY A MISTAKE

STATEMENT BY ORGANISER.

(II TBtBOSAPH.—SPECIAL 10 TH« POST.)

AUCKLAND, This Day.

The first public exposition of the /policy of the new Country Party was given by the organiser, Mr. A. A. Ross, 'last evening. Be said the movement to farm the party originated because the farmers held the opinion that they did not get enough public representation, his occupation made him an individualist, and when his day's work was done he did not feel like attending meetings, for over 20 years the Farmers' Union had claimed to be the only organisation .-which represented the farmers' interests and which could handle all the problems of the farmers. It had! claimed to be non-political, but latterly it had considered this neutrality a mistake. There •were no members in the House to voice the farmers' views,' and so the resolutions and opinions of the Farmers,' Union conferences were to a certain extent neglected. The union could now only approach the Minister in charge of a Bill and interview members; in fact, conld go in by the back door only; but they needed members who could go in the front door and state the farmers' 'views from the floor of the House. The 'Country Party laid it down that its candidates should be free of any other party, and should deal independently with each question irrespective as to how it would affect any Government or ■party. _ Dealing with objections raised against the party, Mr. Edss said it could not be class government unless they got sufficient men on to the Government benches, and there was little chance of that. No 'class should have possession of the Government, for then they soon lost their ideals and strove only to keep in ipower. The charge that the party would split votes and introduce mmorrty representation *was not sound, or else no mew party -would ever, be formed, nor ■would there be any young candidates in an aid party. The party did not approve of proportional representation, but could not see why preference voting should not be introduced. In fact the Reform Party, when it did away -with the second ballot, promised to provide a substitute. Regarding the criticism that the farmers were already well represented, Mr. Ross said that the members were party men first and farmers next.

Mr. Ross cited several questions vital to farmers and alleged injustices which, he said, had not called forth, any effective protest from the1 30 farmers in ■Parliament. Dealing with the Arbitration Court, ho ■said the farmers had always objected that th^ir interests could not. ba run on ■lines laid down by the Court, as they defended on the weather and were obliged to care for animals at all hours of the day,and night. The decisions of it-he Court were of no use except for its machinery clauses. When wages were falling workmen decided for themselves whether or not they would accept them. The Court was a useless expenditure. The same results could be obtained by a round table conference, such as usually followed an unpopular decision of the Court. ( In any case, the party-was not in favour of preference to unionists.