The N.Z. Mail PUBLISHED WEEKLY. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 1st, 1904. FARMERS’ POLITICS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1683, 1 June 1904, Page 49

The N.Z. Mail PUBLISHED WEEKLY. WEDNESDAY, JUNE Ist, 1904. FARMERS’ POLITICS.

The address delivered by (Mir J. G. Wilson at the' opening of the Farmers’ Union Conference at Masterton may be regarded as fairly presenting the policy and purpose of the organisation. He laid special emphasis upon the statement that the union was not intended as a political party machine, but-there seems to be some difference of opinion on this point among the fanners themselves; • and it was exhibited in the debate on the motion “that the colonial executive of the Farmers’ Union endeavour at the next election to put a fanning jparty (free from all other parties)

into the House.” The proposer of this motion went further. He desired to convert the Fanners’ Union into a. fighting machine in polities, and he actually proposed that farmers should be exploited to some extent to enable the union to secure the return of candidates pledged to support the platform of the union. This bold attempt to turn the Farmers’ Union into an electioneering . organisation was promptly dealt with. The delegates, bearing in mind the advice of Mr Wilson, decided that such .a course would be inimical to the best interests of the,union and of the farming community as a whole. Apart from the question of whether Crown tenants should be granted the right to convert their leaseholds into freeholds if they so desire, there is no plank of the union’s platform that could not be taken up by either the Government or the Opposition ; and it does not yet appear that the present Administration has positively declined to accede to the farmers and tenant:;’ .wishes on this point. The Premier has declared himself a strong supporter of the leasehold, and the Minis-

er of Lands has said that ho would not disturb the freeholds under any circumstances. Having regard to the existing conditions of party politics in. New 2eavud, the delegates showed their wisdom in virtually declaring the motion, as it was, “ill-timed and indiscreet.” It does not necessarily follow, because the farmers point out how various matters of administration might be improved, that the whole of the members of the union are “ against the Government,” as some Liberal organs have endeavoured to establish. If we take the discussion on thA land settlement policy of the Government at the Mast or ton Conference, we have an instance in proof of this. The conference was invited by one of the delegates to carry a motion to the effect that it was against the interests of the country’s progress to spend large sums on the repurchase of private lands for closer settlement while the Government had four npllion acres of Crown lands fit for settlement. To have carried this would have amounted to a condemnation of the Government’s land policy; but this the conference refused to do, and after discussion endorsed, without division, the policy of buying lands for close settlement, merely suggesting that the Land for Settlement Act should apply to Maori lands, and that the compulsory clauses should not be put in operation without a vote of the House of Representatives. These two points, ivhile open to debate, do not affect the main issue, that land should be bought for closer settlement. This leading feature ol the Government’s policy, therefore, the Farmers’ Union has,approved. This policy has more than justified its institution, and farmers throughout the country have been greatly benefited by it. In matters pertaining to the administration of the Union’s affairs the delegates displayed commendable sagacity, and wdien dealing with various public questions its dccisions'-were dictated by considerable insight and prudence. While suggesting that the Government should facilitate the expenditure hy local bodies of grants-in-aid, the conference deferred decisions upon such involved questions as the assessment of land values, and the substitution of a universal income tax for the land tax. It is a moot point whether the anomalies of the one system of taxatiQn are greater than those of the other; but, as a matter of fact, thousands of small farmers received some remission of taxation when the incidence was changed, over ten years ago. With the rise in the unimproved value of their holdings, the amount of tlieir taxation now may not he less than that formerly paid, but with higher prices for tlieir produce the settlors have enjoyed much greater prosperity than beforo, and have no reason to complain. Fanners should not, however, be called upon to pay more than is just, and for that reason we are opposed to casting all the burdens of the State upon the land, as is the aim of so-called “land reformers” in and out of Parliament. The discussion of public questions by the farmers in conference is likely, under wise direction, to have an informing and educational effect upon the country, and we trust that no resolution will be passed that would detract in any way from the influence the Farmers’ Union is already exerting over a wide area.