“DOOMED TO FAIL”

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20262, 1 June 1940, Page 3

“DOOMED TO FAIL”

FARMERS AND UNITY AMALGAMATION EFFORT PRODUCERS’ COUNCIL GISBORNE DISCUSSION A statement that the Primary Producers’ Council movement for the purpose of unifying farmers’ organisations was doomed to fail was made by Mr. J. E. Benson, president of the Poverty Bay provincial executive of the Farmers’ Union, in his report to the annual meeting in the Masonic Hotel yesterday. Afterwards, a review of the purposes of the Primary Producers' Council was given by Mr. C. H. Williams, president of the Poverty Bay and East Coast SheepoWners’ Union, but at the close Mr. Benson indicated that he had not changed his opinion. However, the meeting agreed to ask the executive of the Farmers and Sheepowners’ Unions to meet to discuss the matter further. “During the year,” Mr. Benson said, ‘‘a meeting of farmers was held in

the City Hall with the object of bringing about the amalgamation of the Sheepowncrs’, Federation and the Farmers’ Union. A committee consisting of both executives was appointed. “The committee met, and', I regret'to say, failed to do anything except suggest that 1 another organisation be set up to be called the Primary Producers’ Council, this meaning that the sheepfarmers would have three organisations when one would suffice. An Alliance Urged “This move, I am sure, is doomed to fail, and is only a waste of time and money. This opinion is shared by many farmers in executive positions throughout New Zealand.” Mr. Williams, when asked to address the meeting, said that the Primary Producers’ Council had been in existence for some years, but few of the farmers knew of’ i't‘. It was 1 important now because of the demand for cooperation between farmers’ organisations. The council was formed originally to cope with industrial troubles, mainly on' the waterfront. Difficulties which threatened did not then crop up, but the council had met annually and discussed certain industrial matters.

While admitting that an amalgamation as proposed by a Gisborne meeting was desirable, Mr. Williams maintained that it was not practicable to bring about the desire by a scratch of the pen; He had in mind an alliance of farmers’ bodies, much on the lines of the Alliance of Labour, which was the correct idea; amalgamation or an alliance did not matter.

The idea of using the Primary Producers’, Council as a substitute to amalgamation 1 originated in Poverty Bay", and as a farmer—not as president of the Poverty Bay and East Coast Sheepowners’ Union, he wrote to the president of the Shcepowners’ Federation suggesting th’e idea. A meeting was held in Wellington, and it was agreed to circulate recommendations to all bodies interested; suggesting that all should refer questions of importance to all organisations' to the council without independent action, that branches of all organisations in the provinces should refer questions of national importance to the council as often as possible, that public meetings should be called in. each district to;.explain the aims of the council, and that it was held to be advisable that joint meetings of all organisations should be held as frequently as possible!,, to avoid independent action that might prove detrimental to any other organisation concerned. It was felt that' the 1 proposal might lead eventually tb complete amalgamation. “Only Wasting Time” Mr. J. C. Field considered that farmers would be only wasting thentime with a council of divided opinion. Unity was essential. Mrl J. E. Brosnahan said he was not convinced with the idea of the Primary Producers’ Council. Farmers should amalgamate into one body. Replying to Mr. Roldnd Graham; Mr. Williams said there was no danger in the proposal to a possible dismemberment of the Farmers’ Union. The aim was to keep- all the organisations as they were at present. Neither did they wish to destroy’the independence of any. organisation by trying to force them into orie big union. At a Ruatoria meeting; it had'been suggested tfiaf a better name for the Primary Producers* Council would be the Alliance of Prima'rji Producers. Mr. A. Steele asked Whether or not the Fanners’ Bn ion was an alliance of farmers? Mr. Williams replied that it was so, but they must face the fact that other organisations also had 1 grown up and become strong, and at present they did not desire to sink their identities, Mr. Benson contended that the council or alliance proposal would be ;a waste of time, and that there would .still be overlapping of interests. The proposal was riot helpful. They were foolish to go oh with 1 separate organisations. Individually, farmers supjpdrted’ amalgamation', but collectively i they opposed it. was difficult for jorie body of farmers' to lose their i identity, but they should- be big Enough to do it. (Applatise.) Further Meeting to Be Held Mr. W. T. Veitch was of opinion that if amalgamation could not be secured, farmers; should support the council proposal, hot with the hope that' it ; would’work, but because it would not work, and might lead' to something qlsc. After all, the' council would be only a debating society. Mr. M. T. B. Hal,l said that apparently the Shcepowners’ Union did not favour the constitution of the Farmers’ Union, and if that- was correct the Sheepowners’ Union might point out where it desired the constitution to be amended to suit them. Then the Farmers’ Union should ascertain if it could conform with any such proposal. He suggested that a further meeting should be held with the sheepowners on the matter. On the motion of Mr. J. C. Field, it Was agreed to suggest to the Sheepowners’ Uhion that the executives of the Sheepowners’ ahd Farmers’ unions should meet to discuss the matter. Mr. Williams expressed the opinion that amalgamation could not result from such a meeting.