NOT ACCEPTED

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 10, Issue 74, 17 January 1947, Page 5

NOT ACCEPTED

PLEBISCITE RESULT QUESTIONED

SUB-PROVINCIAL VETO

At a well-attended meeting of the Sub-provincial Committee, Bay of Plenty Federated Farmers (Auckland Province) last Wednesday it was decided to veto the result of the recent plebiscite amongst farmers of the Bay, which returned a majority of 98 in favour of the establishment of a self-contained provincial status for the Bay of Plenty, independent of the Auckland Provincial Executive. E?' «aJ! -w 2 -■ ->? The Provincial Secretary (Mr C. Mills Rodger) reported on the result of the plebiscite, declaring that of the 1450 voting papers distributed only 516 were returned in favour of the Bay of Plenty Province, and over 500 were not returned at all. He stated that the Auckland Council was dissatisfied with the conduct of the plebiscite. It had been mutually agreed that there should be no propaganda, and yet the opposing party had issued circulars to members of both bodies, giving informa-

tion which was entirely misleading. -As an example it had been stated that ‘Auckland shelters under a ■ seperate incorporation and embarrasses fair-minded farmers.’ The secretary reminded the meeting that many of the organisations with the

Federation were in an exactly similar position, and not one had de--cided to wind themselves up. Therefore all fair-minded farmers in every ■ organisation were in the same allegedly embarrassing position. The terms of the plebiscite were ratified by the Dominion Conference after practically all the Auckland delegates had left on the last afternoon to catch the train. The rank and file •of the farming community had been .grossly mislead by the unjust accusations made against the Auckland

Province. If the object was to smash the Province because of all it stood for in the furtherance of co-operative principles then farmers generally would soon be in possession of an organisation which would accomplish nothing save the dictates of those who, peculiarly enough,, had in so many cases never taken much interest in farmingaffairs, and whose general principles were certainly not conducive to the improvement of the small farmer’s lot. Mr Rodger contended that of the 500 farmers who did not vote in the plebiscite, many would think it unnecessary to do so because of Auckland’s superiority. He accused - the Dominion body of weak leadership in the past bringing about a state of affairs which had been allowed. Had there been better discipline within the body a plebiscite would have f been unnecessary. It could truthfully be said that only the Auckland group of the old Farmers’ Union, had shown any force and initiative in the past, and if the present disintegration continued, it would be completely subjected, and unable to give voice to the farmer’s opinion as it was entitled. Apart from domestic affairs international agricultural outlook was extremely serious. Complete cooperation was the only solution but of course this was not acknowledged by anti-co-operative interests. On the home field therefore the sponsoring of rural co-operation would cease. This was not the only action in the Auckland Province—others must follow. This was a warning note. Fair play was bonny play but if the farmer knew how he was being fooled and gulled, then the speaker felt sure that the members who had for years and years stuck loyally to Auckland would be the first to rally round in the desperate fight which was being waged.

If the Bay of Plenty farmers were genuinely sure that they could accomplish more as a separate Province, then ‘Good luck to them,’ but at the same time he personally, would like to see the Federation as a whole accomplishing much more in a practical form than was being done at present. It seemed like changing horses in midstream.

If the Auckland Province had let them down in the past then he could believe the result of the ballot as being the general opinion of the rank and file farmers in the Bay, but he could not think this to be the case. He asked delegates to consider the menace of the whole situation, as individually many members had expressed indignation at the plebiscite ever having been considered.

If the members of the Bay of Plenty wished to remain in a body which was a strong association to assist the weak, then he anticipated the five hundred who had not voted to express themselves in a manner which would not leave the issue in

doubt. The plebiscite remit had to be considered by the Dominion Council at the end of February. In the meantime the status quo must remain although he warned delegates, that organising activities might commence before that date. After a short discussion the meeting decided to unanimously support the Auckland Council in its protest against the plebiscite result. The following motion was carried: ‘This Council is profoundly dissatisfied with the plebiscite taken in the Bay of Plenty with regard to Provincial status under Federated Farmers, and cannot accept the result as decisive.’