WITH ONE VOICE

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20074, 21 October 1939, Page 14

WITH ONE VOICE

FARMERS' PROBLEMS CENTRAL ORGANISATION GISBORNE PROPOSAL UNIONS AT VARIANCE While farmers of the Gisborne district are agreed that there should be more co-operation and even an amalgamation of interests of farmers’ organisations, there is a divergence of opinion as to how this should be carried out. A meeting of representatives of the iFarmers' Union, the Sheepowners’ Union and the A. and P. Association was held in Gisborne during the week to discuss amalgamation proposals that were brought up at a public meeting in the town a few months ago. and recommendations were made that a central body should bo appointed in Wellington with central councils in the various districts to discuss matters of general importance. This proposal does not meet with the approval of the Farmers’ Union, which yesterday expressed its opposition in no uncertain terms. A review of the discussion which took place at the combined . meeting earlier in the week was submitted to the meeting in a letter from Mr. A. J. Stock, secretary of the Sheepowners’ Union, who stated that the following resolution was passed:—

“That while failing to agree upon the question of actual amalgamation of existing farmers’ organisations, this meeting strongly favours the establishment of a central committee or council representative of all primary producers’ organisations with a view to bringing about the closest possible co-ordination of their activities in all matters of common importance to the farming community as a whole."

Principles Approved

“In support of the above resolution." the letter added, “the following principles were unanimously approved:—

“1. That the existence of a controlling organisation of primary producers, to meet in Wellington at regular intervals, or for special purposes if required, has become definitely necessary.

"2. That the main function of the body should be to deal with all matters of general importance to the industry: to obviate the present disastrous lack of unanimity which characterises dealing with Government or with other interests; and to provide that in all matters other than those of local or domestic concern the farming community should speak with one voice.

“3. That in order to bring about this unanimity of purpose existing farmers’ associations should agree to refrain from entering into agreements or making overtures in any direction which might affect injuriously any branch of primary production without first referring the case to the central committee for examination and approval. “4. That a suitable organisation for the purpose would be the existing Primary Producers’ Council, reconstructed and its functions widely extended. District Councils “5. That branch primary producers’ councils, to function similar to the main council, should be established in the various districts, dealing with local matters and referring those of wider importance to the parent body. “In the above resolutions the meeting confined itself to broad principles, feeling that the formulation of a practical scheme in detail necessarily must be the subject of careful consideration. If the general principles enunciated above are accepted by the organisations, the rules covering the constitution of the central organisation should offer no insurmountable difficulties.

“It was the unanimous opinion of the meeting that an immediate and determined effort should bo made to ensure that the primary producers of {his country should speak with one voice on matters affecting their industry and of national importance.”

Farmers’ Union Views

“This is an outcome of an endeavour in this district to amalgamate the activities of the Sheepowners’ and Farmers’ Unions.” stated the president, Mr. J. E. Benson, when the letter was read.

He added that the Farmers’ Union now had all the machinery for the organisation referred to. The federation had placed all manner of difficulties in the way. The rank and file of both organisations were demanding that the two organisations should be one body. The Sheepowners’ Union did not want to lose their identity. A voice: That is the whole trouble. Mr. Benson added that the Sheepowners’ Union did not represent the sheepfarmers. The whole trouble in the past had been the heads of the two organisations, who had kept them apart. It was because they did not sit at the one table that the opinions were in conflict, and the farmers would go on being divided so long as the farmers continued in two organisations, •

Mr. R. W. Coop pointed out that rven if the amalgamation took place there would still be separate committees to deal with the different phases of farmers. The proposal of the Sheepowners’ Union was a star'.