POLITICAL PARTY FOR FARMERS

Southland Times, Issue 23839, 9 June 1939, Page 6

POLITICAL PARTY FOR FARMERS

Remarks Described As “Exploratory” EXPLANATION GIVEN BY MR MULHOLLAND 4 VALUE OF BALANCE OF POWER QUESTIONED An explanation of his remarks about possible political action passed at the Otago provincial conference of the Farmers’ Union this week was given by the Dominion president (Mr W. W. Mulholland) at Oreti last night. He emphasized that he did not desire the Farmers’ Union to become a political organization, but considered that there was need for an extra-political body even if political action was taken. He said the experience of the Labour Party showed that it was desirable that such a method of control should be maintained. Mr Mulholland’s statement was prompted by several questions which were handed to him at the end of his address. The first asked whether it was his intention to form a Country Party. „ ~' “My answer is no,” Mr Mulholland said. “My remarks at Dunedin were of an exploratory nature rather than a statement. Perhaps they read more definitely in the condensed newspaper report than the meaning which I intended. I did think it was necessary to bring before the farmers the question of political action. Personally, I have always been very hesitant about embracing the question of a farmers party. Even on the broader basis of a rural party I have been doubtful.” POSITION OF UNION He was very definitely of the opinion that the Farmers’ Union should remain non-political if a farmers’ party came into existence. / “If a Country Party was formed would it be an advantage or would it be antagonistic to those in sympathy with us today?” was a second question. This was not an easy question to answer, said Mr Mulholland. He had studied the growth of the Country Party in Australia. The first effect had been to create at elections a sharp division and eventually when parties had been returned and set about forming a government it was frequently necessary to compromise. The Country Party was frequently in the position of holding the balance of power, but the value of that balance of power was often greatly over-estimated. If a rural party was formed in New Zealand and gained support outside the actual farmers iF’would probably become the middle party. In this event the Labour Party could be expected to become' more radical and the National Party more conservative in their policies when going to an election. If none of the three parties gained an absolute majority and the rural party was the smallest of the three, it would have to bargain with both sides and support the party which was prepared to give most of the rural policy. In other words the party would make the best compromise. “You would say that this would get the things the farmers wanted, but this would not be so,” continued Mr Mulholland. “Both of the other parties would have swung more to the left or right than they are at present and the bargaining would bring them back to what they would have been if they had had to consider the rural vote as important for their success.” DIRECT REPRESENTATION There was an advantage of having direct representation in Parliament. Any section of the community not directly represented only had an opportunity to have its wishes voiced at each election, but if it had representatives in Parliament its voice could be heard all the time. The experience in Australia seemed to show that the formation of a separate party would have an immediate result which would gradually disappear. “The Farmers’ Union should not itself enter politics. The farmers need an organization apart from politics,” said Mr Mulholland. The Labour Party had had considerable experience and it maintained an extra-political organization. No political party could hope to have success if it did not produce a policy dealing with the whole political life of the country. The farmers were not interested in the whole political sphere and they required an organization to give attention to the wants of their own section even if they did form their own political party. “I know a big number of farmers are talking about politics and I raised the question the other day because I wanted to bring the discussions out into the open instead of having whispers about the question,” he concluded.