VOICE OF THE FARMER

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 80, Issue 256, 28 October 1937, Page 9

VOICE OF THE FARMER

QUESTION OF UNIFYING JT

CONFLICT OF INTERESTS UNION AND SHEEPOWNERS’ FEbERATION The opinion was expressed at a meeting of the provincial executive of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union at Wanganui yesterday that it was time the union became a national organisation on the lines followed in Britain. The tenor of the debate suggested that the Sheepowners’ Federation should merge with the union and, in effect, become a committee within it. Similarly the union, it was suggested, should radiate committees directly in touch with, and capable of handling, matters connected with the various phases of farming dairying, wheat growing, meat and wool production.

Mr A. L. Elmslie (Waverley) precipitated the debate by reporting that there was an intention to form a branch of the Sheepowners’ Federation at Hawera, and various farmers were being circulated to subscribe 7s 6d per 1000 sheep to the funds. The New Zealand body’s subscription was 5s a 1000, he said. “Personally, 1 think the Farmers’ Union could du everything the Sheepowners’ Federation is doing,” Mr Elmslie addea, stating that he had belonged to the federation for upwards of 20 years.

Mr Claud Smith (Brunswick) Hear, hear.

Mr R. O. Montgomerie (Kakatahi) was of opinion that the Farmers’ Union, representative of the many phases of farming, was not qualified to go forward and speak with authority on them all. The Sheepowners’ Federation carried more weight when it came to putting the sheepowner’s case than the union, which represented all sections of the farming community. The fact that the subscription was likely to rise from 5s to 7s 6d a thousand was only another indication of how necessary it was to organise, he said. "Personally, I have never belonged to the Sheepowners 1 Federation, but I intend to in the future,” Mr Montgomerie added.

Mr W. Morrison (Maxwell) recalled reasons why the federation and the union could not amalgamate in the early days. The federation was an incorporated body then and the union was not, and the workers could not cite the union. Now the position had changed and the union could be cited. It was desirable that the union should be representative of all classes. At one time, when the union was representative largely of dairy farmers, the sheepowners were not so keen as they were now to work in with it. To-day the Farmers’ Union did not go to Parliament without the federation on matters affecting the sheepowner. Mr W. J. Melville (Fordell) sain that he differed altogether with Mr Montgomerie. An effort had been made, he said, to get the dairy farmers into the union and that effort had been successful. “I am quite sure in my own mind that it would be much better if the union incorporated the Sheepowners’ Federation,” Mr Melville added. ‘‘Let us speak witn one voice as the Government is asking us to do. If the two bodies amalgamate it will be a stronger constitution than the two working independently.” “It will be much better if we have a National Farmers’ Union in this country like they have in Britain, with committees formed from within to watch the various interests, sheep, dairying, wheat-growing,” said Mr Smith.

The president (Mr T. Currie) pointed out that there was some misunderstanding as to membership of the Sheepowners’ Federation. The 5s per thousand sheep did not mean membership, but a contribution to a fighting fund.