FARMERS' UNION AFFAIRS

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 9, Issue 28, 30 November 1945, Page 4

FARMERS' UNION AFFAIRS

Sir.-—Mr W. A. Rushton writes that four members ol' the Auckland delegation to the Rules Conference of Federated Farmers dutifully remained ami that 17 "shirked their responsibility His figures are wrong. Only three the Waikatoites remained in the conferenee. As many amendments were put through by the Bay of Plenty for which-Mr Rushton's brother was largely responsible ? he. should enquire as to how these three menibers supported the amendments. To whom were delegates responsible? To what was Mr Rushton pledged? To Auckland Farmers' Union decisions and to nothing else. Auckland Farmers' Union has been paying the expenses that are worrying Mr Rushton—of Conference after Conference, rendered abortive by those who opposed their own Con.ference's who opposed resolutions emanating from the Waikato and supported at the time by Mr Rushton. Auckland Conference last May laid down four worded by the Waikato j as pre-re-quisities of joining Federated Farmers based on offers by the Dominion Council of Federated Farmers. The first was defining "aims and objects''—since it is wise to know where j'our ship is going before embarking. Next was incorporation of Auckland Province. The third was representation in accordance with numerical membership; the fourth protected the Province financially.

Consequent on a Wellington Conthe resumed Auckland Conference abandoned the full protection that Auckland Farmers' Union possessed, for "branch" incorporation in Federated Farmers. It was also carried that commitments were dependent on previous conditions being made either before or at the Rules Conference. The agreement with the Provisional Council was put in writing by that Council and every effort was; made to have that agreement carried out by that Council before the Rules Conference. There was no standing ,

to the written agreements. The delegation went far beyond its powers.

Shortly before the Rules 'Conference the Waikato issue was made urgent. This was made the excuse !at that Conference for not keeping j the agreement with Auckland. Under the conditions imposed by their own. Conference delegates could not honorably remain at a Conference that ignoring "agreements decided to "pass on to the next business." That those who raised the row remained! is not to their ccrdit. Mr Rushton. shows what the Waikato moverhent really means when he argues for breaking up the whole province.. That was why. the Waikato row was raised. Men who took little interestin farmers.' affairs are now dividing the farmers' house. It is childish for Mr Rushton to deny political implications. Mr Rushton was present and voted for political action, and against direct action—not once but manj r " times. Yours etc., R. W. DUNNING.