BELGIAN TREATY

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 29, 4 February 1932, Page 12

BELGIAN TREATY

FARMERS AGGRIEVED

SHOULD. HAVE BEEN

CONSULTED

Criticism of the Government's action in entering into the trade treaty with Belgium without consulting the Farmers' Union was made at a meeting of the Dominion. executive to-day. A motion in support of the protest was, however, lost. . ■

The Auckland branch wrote stating that its executive .was greatly concerned that the recent treaty with Belgium was sprung bo suddenly upon the public, and the executive desired to know whether the Farmers* Union was consulted in any way before the treaty was entered into.

"It appears," the letter stated, '_'that proprietary: interests handling lines of farm produce that - are not usually exported by farmers themselves or by their organisations have reeeivod first-class treatment; indeed, to t^g extent that the goods they handle are practically all admitted free into Belgium. • On the other hand, practically no consideration appears to have been extended to farm products in which any real proportion of value goes to tue farmers. This strikes my executive as exactly the wrong way iv which to have negotiated a treaty, and my executive will bo glad to know just what occurred in this' connection. ; 'My executive would point out that the farmers directly use most of the Belgian imports, and oven as a matter or. common decency, both as. exporters ana importers, should have been con-

In supporting the letter Mr E H Feisst (Waikato) said that it 'was another case1 where the Government had ignored the farmers' Union, and ha* associated itself with tho manufacturers' and importers' associations. He moved that a protest be entered to the • Government.

nw * f\ X Mathes™ (Wellington) objected to a discussion on the rights and wrongs of a treaty which the nTr er T raA ,yet had timltrreaS

-oYC^tir tothe>*• the

inThT^t^ad 1"0 a° <«~ v¥if* W* Morris°n (WanganniV "Is io^^S,f°rthe^-nmen?