FARMERS’ UNION

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 55, Issue 3927, 16 July 1937, Page 4

FARMERS’ UNION

ATTITUDE TO PARTY POLITICS. CONFERENCE DISCUSSION. The attitude of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union toward party politics was briefly discussed at the Dominion conference at Wellington on Wednesday, following the address ot the president, Mr W. W. Mulholland, who had suggested as possible alternatives to the union’s present nonparty attitude, the formation of a farmers’ party or affiliation with the National Party. Mr H. E. Mellsop (Auckland) said he believed that the union should keep apart from, party politics, and reserve the right to approve or criticise Individual measures put forward by any party. If farmers were to make any move in party politics, as might possibly bo found necessary, it should be made outside the union. He moved: “That it should be a plank in the union’s platform that no part should be taken in party politics." Seconding the motion. Mr A. E. Robinson (Auckland) said that the union had always reserved the right to criticise or to give its wholehearted support to any measure brought down by any party. Mr AV. J. Polson, M.P., said, that he thought the present rule adequately met the situation. He read the rule, as follows: “To keep and maintain a vigilant watch on all legislative measures brought before Parliament, and to protest against such measures as are deemed injurious to farmers' interests.” “DIRECT CONFLICT.” Mr AV. A. Sheat (South Taranaki) said that Mr Mellsop’s motion was in direct conflict with the first clause of plank 1 in the union’s proposed platform. The clause was: "The Farmers’ Union is opposed to State ownership and control of the means of production, distribution and exchange.” That, said Mr Sheat, was direct opposition to the policy of the present Government. Mr Mulholland said that the fact that the union’s platform conflicted on some points with the policy of the Government would not make the union a political organisation. Mr Sheat said that members of the Labour Party were pledged to something to which, if the clause were adapted, the union would state it was definitely opposed. In those circumstances he did not see how anyone could belong to both organisations, "If we pass the clause we become a political organisation, opposed to the present Government,” he said. Mr R. H. Feisst (Cambridge) supported the president’s view that a difference, on isolated points, with the policy of any party did not make the union opposed to that party. The discussion was adjourned, and the following committee was appointed to go into the question of the union’s attitude to party politics and ieport to the conference: Messrs H. O. Mellsop, AV. J. Polson M.P., L. Hammond and E. H. Murney. STATE OWNERSHIP. The conference then proceeded to discuss the platform printed in the agenda. Mr Mellsop moved the adoption ot plank 1, which stated that the union was opposed to State ownership and control of the means ot production, distribution and exchange, nevertheless considering it desirable that the State should operate certain monopolistic public services or those ot so uncertain return as to be unattractive to private enterprise. He said it was what the union had always thought. The inconsistency of this plank with the clause in the union’s rules which implies the unions’ policy of non-interference in party politics was again pointed out by Mr Sheat. The platform proposed was not going to clarify the union's policy, but bring to light the varying nature of the motions of its conferences over the years, he said. At this stage the conference decided to go into committee. Later the following decision was y announced: “The Farmers’ Union is opposed to State ownership and control of the means ot production, distribution and exchange; nevertheless it holds that the State should operate certain public services, especially where, by their nature, they must be of a monopolistic character, such as railways, telegraphs and electricity.