FARMERS' AFFAIRS

Evening Post, Volume CXL, Issue 54, 1 September 1945, Page 10

FARMERS' AFFAIRS

LACK OF INTEREST

WARNING TO PRODUCERS

"If the farmers are not interested enough to arrange their own affairs, they will probably be arranged for them —and in a way that will not be to their advantage,' 5 said Mr. James Begg at the annual meeting of the electoral college of the New Zealand Meat Producers' Board yesterday, when commenting on the reference made by the chairman (Mr. G. H. Grigg) to the lack of interest in the recent postal ballot. "We set out in the annual report particulars showing the number ofj sheepfarmers who take the trouble to return their voting papers in recent years," said Mr. Grigg. "The board then expressed the hope that a much greater interest would, be taken in the election. I am sorry to say that the returns for the election just concluded do not show any improvement i—in fact, they show the reverse. Out !of more than 21,000 voting papers is- j sued barely 9000 were returned —only 42& per cent. Last year and the year before the percentage was about 46 per cent." "Farmers are obviously not taking j the interest in their affairs they should. 'They want waking up," declared Mr. E. A. Cameron (Riversdale). Mr. W. N. Russell (Dannevirke) suggested that smaller electoral districts might create a greater personal interest in candidates. Mr. J. Graham (Hastings) said that farmers generally knew very little about the board. "And some who make the most noise know the least," he added. Mr. W. Malcolm (Oamaru) pointed out that the recent contracts seemed to be accomplished, but vital facts concerning prices had not been revealed. Where there may have been some excuse in wartime for withholding them, there was not the same justification now. Details should be placed frankly before the country. It was because of that lack of frankness that there was not the same interest shown | in the board . Mr. W. W. Mulholland said he was not certain that the agreement had actually been concluded, though, it was in operation, and it was impossible for very speciSc details to be published. After having seen the confidential facts, the committee was satisfied that the lump sum payment of £12,000,000 was a definite grant to the New Zealand Government to compensate for the difference between the price levels at which Njew Zealand was selling its produce and those at which Britain was selling j her products to New Zealand. Farmers must be aware of the danger of this system of dividing payment for New Zealand produce continuing as Sa permanent policy. The circumstances that had made it admissible arid acceptable could not recur if New Zealand's economy were soundly managed, and any recurrence of it must be strongly resisted.