UNITED FARMERS’ FEDERATION

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 79, 30 September 1944, Page 3

UNITED FARMERS’ FEDERATION

FORMATION OF NEW BODY , MORE THAN AN AMALGAMATION Wellington, This Day. Conclusive action for the formation of a new body to be known as the United Farmers’ Federation of New Zealand—which is to include all farmers—was taken at the end of a special meeting in Wellington yesterday of the council of the Farmers’ Federation. A resolution was adopted urging that agreement on the final draft of rules be reached as soon as possible, that the new organisation be then registered, and a provisional Dominion council then established to arrange for its functioning. This statement was made by Mr B. V. Cooksley. president of the Farmers' Federation, Mr G. H. Grigg. president of the Sheepowners’ Federation, and Mr W. W. Mulholland, Dominion president of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union, who said that draft copies of the proposed rules would be circulated, and a further meeting of the committee working on them would be held about the end of October. after which it was hoped it would be possible to register the new organisation. During a discussion earlier in the day by representatives of the interested bodies, which included the Commercial Market Gardeners’ Association, it was stated by Mr A. P. O’Shea, Dominion secretary of the Farmers’ Union, that the union would lose its entity as such when the new organisation came into existence. Mr Cooksley urged all fanners to unite in the strongest possible democratic organisation. He said the new body contemplated was more than an amalgamation. It might mean the complete disappearance of some existing bodies. Endeavours had been made to find a place for the smaller groups, which could be its strength, or its weakness. Organisations, apart from the statutory bodies, which it is proposed shall be represented in the new set-up, are the Farmers’ Union. Sheepowners’ Fedration, Dairy Industry Pig Council, bobby calf pools. Fruitgrowers’ Federation, Wheatgrowers’ Association, poultry, honey and dairy industries. tobacco growers, commercial gardeners, smallfruitgrowers, hopgrowers, and maizegrowers. Mr Cooksley. who presided, said that a joint committee representing the Sheepowners’ Federation and the Farmers’ Union had been negotiating for the amalgamation of these two bodies. The Farmers’ Federation, he added, had been in existence for five years, and consisted* of representatives of 14 Dominion organisations. There was also a tie-up with statutory bodies such as the meat, dairy and tobacco boards. The federation had done a very good job within the limits of its powers, and had been financed from goodwill grants by the constituent bodies. However, during its five years of existence no statutory body had ever referred matters to the federation for ■ approval. The Government had referred certain matters, including the stabilisation agreement. The federation itself had initiated action with the Government and other bodies, but as it existed at present it was a loose arrangement. though it had done much good for the farmer. AMALGAMATION MOVE The federation, said Mr Cooksley, had sponsored the movement between the Sheepowners’ Federation and the Farmers’ Union for amalgamation, but as at present constituted it was not the ideal body to represent the enormous body of farming opinion, and must be strengthened. Mr Cooksley said he believed the farmers of this country were clamouring for an organisation which would start at the bottom, on the farm, and be united right through to the top. It was desired to make a place within the framework of the new organisation for the co-operative concerns which handled the farmers’ produce. Farmers felt that it was sometimes inadvisable for statutorj* bodies to express the opinions of farmers, and the need for a strong domestic organisation to back up these bodies would be appreciated. During wartime infringements by the Government on the people became intense. The Farmers’ Federation could never be party-political, but as the Government fixed the farmers* produce 1 prices, the federation had to be politically conscious. Farmers were talking of producer control after the war, and they had to decide whether they were going to ask for a continued State guarantee. or market their own produce. If the farmers who had built up the industry by their own efforts were not fit to do so, who was? Assuming that the guaranteed price might not be ac- , ceptable—Mr Cooksley said he did not know whether it would be or not—it would be the statutory bodies who would control the flow of shipments after the war. New Zealand’s standard of living depended ftn her surplus of sterling funds in London, and the people who created those were the primary producers of this country. It was the farmers who generated the power of production. Talk of direct action was heard on all sides, said Mr Cooksley. There was a coal shortage, a threatened railway strike, and the city tramways system had been paralysed a week ago. However, the great bulk of the farmers, and the farmers' leaders, stood for constitutional action definitely during the war and most likely during the peace. Direct action was loose talk. They deplored the fact that it was becoming too common a practice to bring grievances "before the Government today. and it was regrettable that direct actffrn had brought relief in some cases. THE COUNTRY QUOTA “The country quota today is part and parcel of our constitution. We, as farmers, are very concerned by the talk of some backbenchers that the country quota must go.” added Mr Cooksley, who said that its abolition would in effect, alter the constitution, and that if that were done the farmers would have to reconsider their action. “If the country quota is brought up. then we, as farmers, should demand that the Government go to the country on that point, and do not dare to touch it till they have the approval of the people,” he said. Politicians talked glibly of control and protection of the consumers. It was* logical that something would have to be done to protect the woolgrower from the effects of the big surplus on the post-war market. There was a Wool Council and the wool growers wanted a Wool Board. They, the Farmers’ Union and the Farmers* Federation, had passed resolutions to that effect. The sheepowners should organise under the farmers’ federation and say they wanted it. ONE BODY The general conception of the organisation was as one body for all the producers from the land in New Zealand, said Mr Mulholland. The farmer could be a member, of the general organisation and his own particular section of it by one subscription. He could be a registered member of , more than one special section, according to his type of farming occupation. The organisation generally : would follow the lines of that of the 1 :

Farmers’ Union on the basis of local branches grouped into provincial areas, but each particular section would retain its complete freedom to manage its own affairs right through to ils Dominion sect on council, though part of the general domestic set-up. “There is no doubt that the time has arrived when the farmers of this country should speak with one voice. That can only bp done through one organisation,” said Mr Grigg. expressing his concurrence with the general proposals. Some sheepowners, he said, belonged to the Sheepowners' Federation, some to the Farmers’ Union, and some to neither. Nothing was yet final about the organisation, as the proposals had to be ratified by the individual bodies concerned. They would not attain the success hoped for unless they could include the smaller groups.