FARMERS CRITICAL

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20142, 11 January 1940, Page 11

FARMERS CRITICAL

PRODUCTION COUNCILS LITTLE ACCOMPLISHED CANTERBURY COMPLAINT Growing among Canterbury farmers is the belief that the Government would be wise to “scrap” the primary production councils set up to increase production, and let the Department of Agriculture carry on the work. Formed shortly after the war broke, out, the councils, so far, have accomplished little. Action has been hindered by the unwieldy size of each of the district organisations—North Canterbury’s has 1G members—and by the fact that they are a composite of practical and theoretical men whose views differ. It is learnt that there have been several secret conferences in Wellington to discuss the scheme, and adverse comment has been expressed on the way in which it has fallen Gown. Adding fuel to the discontent already evident among farmers is the reported decision of the Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. W. Lee Martin, to admit members of Parliament to the various councils. Farmers point out that the production councils have been in being for more than three months, yet in the South Island, at any rate, nothing has been done save waste time in discursive discussion. Admission of M.Ps. The admission of members of Parliament, it is felt, would only increase the difficulty of getting things done. Political arguments are certain, and fanner members of one council have intimated that they will not sit with the local member of Parliament, who. they say, knows little about farming. The councils, it is claimed, should be free from political influences if they are to exist at all. For 25 or 30 years, it is argued, the Department of Agriculture has been carrying on good work in Canterbury along exactly the same lines as arc now proposed for the primary production councils. The department’s main job is to increase production and see that this production is efficiently regulated and directed. One prominent farmer, who is a member of the North Canterbury Council, said that he failed to see why the department, with perhaps advisory committees for consultation on special subjects, should not continue to operate along these lines instead of waiting, as at present, for the council to decide what was wanted.

One man could have done a great deal of practical work in the three months since the council was set up, yet all members had done so far was talk.

“We have to leave our farms at 9 particularly busy time of the year lc attend a meeting once a month, when we know it will be a day wasted,” he said. Department’s Good Work “The department has done great •work for the Canterbury farmer in fostering the growth of productive crops, and the Wheat Research Institute has worked wonders for the wheatgrower. What can the Primary Production Council do that these two bodies cannot?” he asked. “Furthermore, there would be no time-wasting argument and dissension.” During the Great War, he recalled, efficiency boards were set up. Just the same position developed—in the end the work of forming a production policy of seeing that it was carried out fell back on the Department of Agriculture. Farmers would co-oper-ate with the department, hut it was doubtful whether they would be told their job by a politically-minded council.