FARMERS UNION

King Country Chronicle, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4817, 31 July 1939, Page 5

FARMERS UNION

TE KUITI BRANCH ANNUAL MEETING.

MORE INTEREST REQUIRED

The annual general meeting of the Te Kuiti branch of the Farmers,' Union was held in Dinsdale's rooms on Friday afternoon, Mr. J. F. Roberts presiding over about 28 farmers. Mr. Roberts reported that during the past year there had been.rather a poor response in the attendance of meetings, though he would like to thank those who had consistently attended. Various matters had been dealt with and gone forward through Union channels, the results not being what they might have been owing to what Mr. Roberts termed the steamroller policies of the Government. The branch had been represented by delegates at the Northern King Country executive meetings, and Mr. H. Mason, a member of the branch, was on the Auckland Provincial Executive.

Mr. Roberts urged members to move with caution, for it appeared as if the farming community were being made a political chopping block at the present time. Only proposals embodying constructive suggestions, he considered, should be put forward. At the beginning of the year the branch had about 100 members, but at present the membership was just under the fifty mark. Election of Officers. The election of officers resulted as follows: President: Mr. J. F. Roberts. Vice-president: Mr. J. J. Warriner. Secretary: Mr. J. Hislop. Delegates to Sub-Provincial Conference: Messrs. J. F. Roberts and J. Hislop. Auditor: Mr. H. Gould. Executive: President and secretary and Messrs. W. Walker, W. D. Neal, H. Mason, W. I. Hunt, J. J. Warriner, Tappin, G. C. Miln. Mr. H.* Mason said that the Union had been heavily censured over what was stated to be an antagonistic attitude to the guaranteed price. Originally the Union was opposed to the guaranteed price, but since costs, for reasons upon which he did not wish to enter, had mounted so high dairy farmers had been placed in an awkward position. At the recent Dominion Conference the Union adopted the National Dairy Association resolution that the 1939-40 price be the same as that recommended by the Advisory Committee for 1938-39, plus the increase in costs which had since occurred.

Now it appeared possible that the Government was going to ask dairy farmers to vote on a guaranteed price, but would this be a guaranteed price as visualised in the legislation and promised the farmer, or the equalisation price that was now being paid? Mr. Mason said there was grave' danger of the Government, by asking the dairy farmer to vote on the guaranteed price without specifying just what was meant by that term, manoeuvring him into a position that would be unfair or inimical to farmers' interests. He therefore proposed that in the event of the Government taking a vote on this question it first should definitely state the basis of the guarantee, and the method by which the Government meant to arrive at the figure of the price.

In seconding the motion Mr. W. I. Hunt said if the ' price legislation was administered in accord with the Act, the industry would favour it, but if the administration was to be along the lines followed when fixing the 1938-39 price it would be a different matter.

Mr. W. D. Neal said that if the Government was going to keep up the present high wages and costs there might, if the guaranteed price formula be adhered to, be a huge deficit in the dairy industry. The whole trouble was the huge burden of costs.

Mr. G. C. Miln was of the opinion that if a referendum on the guaranteed price that would place the farmers in an unfair position was promoted by the Government, the farmer should withhold his vole The motion piopos"-! by Mr. Mason was then unanimously carried, as was a further notice, proposed by Mr. Miln and seconded by Mr. Warriner, that dairy farmers be circularised with a view to their refraining from voting on the guaranteed price until, the position had been made clear.