ONE UNION ONLY

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 19978, 1 July 1939, Page 4

ONE UNION ONLY

INTERESTS OF FARMERS AMALGAMATION PROPOSED OPINION IN GISBORNE MASS MEETING DECISION A proposal that all. farmers’ organisation, should unite in one strong union in order to protect their interests was made at a meeting of farmers held in the City Hall yesterday afternoon.

Speakers contended that this was necessary if the farmers were to speak with one voice in matters vitally affecting their interests, and they urged that immediate steps, should be taken to secure an amalgamation of the present two most important organisations.

The following motion moved by Mr. M. T. B. Hall and seconded by Mr. F. Fitzgerald, was carried without opposition:—

- ‘‘This- meeting- strongly- ..urges, the. amalgamation ;crf -all -producers’ • organisations, and we consider that the first step in this direction should be the amalgamation of the Farmers Union and the Sheepowners’ Union, and therefore asks 'the local executives of these two organisations to take immediate steps to place this request for amalgamation before their respective head offices.”

Mr. M. T. B. Hall said there seemed to be general agreement among farmers that a close working of farmers organisations was necessary. He believed that both organisations named in the motion would benefit considerably by a co-ordination of interests. There were some very able men on both the Sheepfarmers’ Union and the Farmers’ Union . (Applause.) Up Against Trades Unions,

Supporting the motion, Mr. W. T. Veitch said that the farmers were up against the trades unions, and to fight them the farmers must have a stronger union. He did not care how the co-ordination was to be brought about or how it -was worked, so long as all branches of farming were in the union. The main troubles were political, and. to do any good: all the 60,000 farmers in New Zealand must be talking through the one organisation. (Applause.) The farmers would get nowhere by any other method.

The farming community had a big load to carry and a big duty to perform, he continued, and there was no other country, in the world where it could be better said that the farmers were the backbone of the country. The farmers must have some say in the policy of the country. The London funds had been fluttered away, and the formers must pay for the loan that was being arranged in London. It was essential that farmers should be in one big union.

Mr. /K. Kohler, a visitor from the Manawatu, said that in the Manawatu at one time there were two unions, the Farmers’ Union, and the Dairy Farmers’ Union, and eventually they were amalgamated. An attempt was made to join together all farmers’ organisations, and in 1935 he had sought to bring the matter to a head, urging central control of the whole movement and separate sections to consider the affairs of their own particular affairs.

“Not So Easy.”

Mr. C. H. Williams, president of the Poverty Bay and East Coast Sheepfarmers’ Union, was heartily m favour of .‘the much closer co-opera-tion between farmers’ organisations, but he considered that it was not so easy as it looked. All organisations formed were necessary to their own .particular sections of industry, and each one must have its association, an in industry and trade, but he saw no reason why they should not be centred on one central organisation.

He was prepared to bring tile matter before the conference of his federation to see what could be done, but he was sure it could not be done locally until all types of farmers’ organisations throughout the Dominion had an opportunity of discussing the matter.

Mr. R. W. Coop said he was heartily in accord with an amalgamation of all farmers’ organisations. The farmers were divided, and as such they must fall. (Applause.) Mr. J. E. Benson, Poverty Bay provincial president of the Farmers’ Union, complimented Mr. Williams on his willingness to seek co-operation, tout he did not think anything would toe done. The matter had been discussed at the Farmers’ Union conferences, but that was as far as the matter had gone. It seemed to him to be absurd to have two organisations. In Southland, the sheep and dairy interests of the Farmers’ Union met separately first, and then held a combined meeting later in the clay. The fanners should not leave the matter to their few leaders. Individually all were in favour of amalgamation, tout collectively the organisations were opposed to each other.

Sheepowners’ Attitude.

Mr. M. T. Trafford asked Mr. Williams if he would advocate amalgamation at the conference of the Sheepowners’ Federation.

Mr. Williams replied that he would advocate that each year the Sheepowners’ Federation and the Farmers’ Union should assemble separately in Wellington, at the same time, then meet later on the same day or the following day to discuss problems of mutual interest. The same thing could toe done locally, delegates from each association to be present. That was the type of co-operation he advocated, and that would be better than one big union divided against itself.

Mr. Hall did not agree with Mr. Williams’ idea, which, he thought, was not going far enough. What was required was definite amalgamation, working as one body. The first step was in the amalgamation of the two principal bodies. The united body should appoint sub-committees 1 to take charge of matters concerning certain .branches' of farming, but all should be under the control of a central executive.

The motion was carried without opposition.