ATTITUDE TO FARMING

Taranaki Daily News, 8 November 1935, Page 10

ATTITUDE TO FARMING

NO RESTRICTIVE SCHEMES POLICY OF DEMOCRAT PARTY. . OTHER PROPOSALS CRITICISED. Contending that both the National and Labour proposals meant the socialisation of agriculture, Mr. C. R. Finnerty, Democrat candidate for Stratford, while speaking at Tarata last nigh., examined both policies and contrasted them with the Democrat plan which, he said, was definitely opposed to control oi‘ restriction of any industry. Mr. Finnerty said it did not matter whether the National Government or Labour Party was returned as in each case apparently it was intended to socialise agriculture. The Government policy seemed to be based on the advice of Dr. Sutch, Dr. Campbell and Professor Belshaw. He had noticed that even in his election campaign, the Minister of Finance, the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates, had been accompanied by one of these three men. It was therefore easy to see where the policy of control was coming from and personally he had no doubt that if the National Government Party were returned agriculture would be under severe control in the future.

Those three young men with heaps of ideas and no practical experience had issued a pamphlet just before the Dairy Commission sat. Mr. Finnerty gave a summary of the pamphlet as follows: — “(a) Recognition should be given to the fact that control by a competent authority is increasingly required. The abandonment of ‘laissez faire” means the need for social control, (b) Control must be comprehensive. . . . control by producers alone of their organisations is dangerous . . . Their material interests may conflict with the wider interest of the community, (d) Allocation of rights to the produced on the basis of the status quo is likely to infringe the reasonable requirements of efficiency especially in a young country. (n Generally the developments and the prospects sketched in these pages point to a need to a degree that is not defined, of socialisation of agriculture.” “So the object of the advisers of the Government is the socialisation of agriculture,” Mr. Finnerty said. “Tht first step is the Agriculture Emergency Powers Act; we are at the cross-roads of the loss of freedom,” he added. LABOUR ON AGRICULTURE. Turning to the Labour policy on agriculture, he said it was evident that just as drastic a control would be imposed by Labour. He read a number of remits introduced to the 1935 Labour Conference as follow:—“Remit No. 6-That paragraph 7 be amended to provide for a Department of Trade, the Minister in charge to have complete control of all exports and imports. No. 7—That whereas any system of guaranteed prices that aims at conserving private equities of land is contrary to the socialistic objective of the Labour Party it is desirable that the party be amended to provide for the complete nationalisation of land. No. 14—That the Labour Party policy be amended to provide for (a) the taking over of industries whether primary or secondary necessary for the common weal; (d) abolition of the right of inheritance. No. 34—(b) That a trading department be established with branches in the principal cities to give the State direct control over the issue of credit to the industrial and agricultural organisations of the country. No. 43—That the price of all material and implements sold to farmers for the production of wealth from the land be extolled. Dairy produce—That one of the first acts of a Labour Government in New Zealand shall be to get in touch with the Cooperating Wholesale Society of Great Britain with a view to negotiating an agreement for the disposal of, all the dairy produce of New Zealand.” It was very evident what New Zealand could expect from the Labour Party, Mr. Finnerty said. Practically all the remits were definitely socialistic. Tire farmer would be placed under severe control and apparently he would not be able to make his own arrangements for the sale of his produce. “I challenge Mr. Skoglund,” he said, "to state whether he approves of these remits which, as can be seen, are rank Socialism both in spirit and letter, or else to state publicly his repudiation of the expressed views of tire members of the Labour Party branch which was responsible for each of the remits quoted.” The following, he continued, appeared in the 1935 report of the Labour conference: “Mr. H. T. Armstrong (then president of the New Zealand Labour Party) signed the national executive’s annual report adopted at the conference last April.” Page 7, Mr. Finnerty stated, included: “The establishment of a new social order in which production for profit will be abolished and production to supply the needs, physical and cultural, of the people will take its place . . . there, never was a time more opportune for its accomplishment. Let us be up and doing with a faith that knows, no defeat till ownership and control of the means of life are obtained.” The Democrat Party, Mr. Finnerty concluded, was definitely opposed to control and restrictions in all industries and opposed to the socialisation of agriculture. The party would help the producer to 'carry on his industry and to remove as far as possible all restriction on his actions.