WELLINGTON TOPICS

Hokitika Guardian, 30 July 1928, Page 4

WELLINGTON TOPICS

FARMERS IN POLITICS. MR W. J. POLSON’S VIEW. (Special to “Guardian”.) WELLINGTON, June 26. In the course of his presidential address at the opening of the annual conference of the Farmers’ Union on Tues- | day, Mr IV. J. Poison took pains to explain to the delegates the difference between the Union associating itself, as a union, with a political party, and members of ttie union, as individuals, giving their support to any party in Parliament that was seeking to promote the interests of the farmers. Anv attempt to turn the Union into a party engine, he said, would undoubtedly drive out of the organisation men who had given it loyal and faithful service over a period of nearly thirty years and were entitled to hold their own party views without being challenged. “ J3ut,” Mr Poison continued, “we should continue to keep the interests of the country as a whole in the forefront, while at the same time bringing all the pressure we arc capable of to bear upon Parliament and upon. parties in Parliament to obtain sound legislation for the benefit of our industry and the country at large.” It is just a question of where the Union’s pressure begins and where it ends.

AN INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE. The “ Dominion ” with more than its accustomed alacrity, rebukes Mr Poison for having dared to describe the present political situation as unsatisfactory. “ Mi* Poison no doubt Tins been influenced in forming this opinion,” it says, “by the rather unhappy outcome of his own recent public controversies with the Minister of Finance. He is not of that type which suffers rebuke quietly, even though it may have been administered in such form as to increase his stores of knowledge. Moreover, the fact cannot be ignored that Mr Poison cannot claim to be a dispassionate judge, for lie recently disclosed bis own political ambitions, and as a candidate in declared opposition to the Government be has seized the opportunity to do a little electioneering. Some may question the wisdom or good taste of including certain of the political references in liis presidential address, but his acknowledged bias against the Government robs them of much of their importance.” The fact that Mr Poison is seeking election as an Independent should have saved from the reproach in advance of being against the Government. He has made it quite plain that lie is placing principles before parties. LEGISLATIVE REFORM.

Though the conference of the Farmers’ Union does not permit itself the privilege of discussing party politics, it has no scruples in dealing with the Constitution of the Dominion. At its meeting yesterday, Mr A. A. Ross, one of the Auckland delegates, tabled a motion to the effect that the Legislative Council should be made an elective body in accordance with the law already on the Statute Rook. Mr Ross did not poke fun at the revising branch of the Legislature. He simply maintained that it cost more than it was worth and did not adequately discharge the duties for which it was originally constituted. Among the humourists supporting tho motion Captain Colbeck stated that the Upper House was a. pleasant place in time of trouble, but beyond that was not worth the money it cost. An amendment was moved to the effect that the Council should lie abolished altogether, but it was rejected on the voices and Mr Ross’s motion carried practically unanimously. Mr Coates has a rare chalice to make a name for himself. Tho Prime Minister who dares to reform the Legislative Council along the linos designed by its present leader will reap n rich harvest. DAYLIGHT SAVING. The rejection 6f Mr Sidey’s Summer Time Dili in the House of Representatives at an early hour this morning was not unexpected by the friends of the measure. The Prime Minister had been as good as his word in giving the Bill “ a fair run ” ; but all the rural forces that could he swept into opposition, backed up by various city interests, were arrayed against it. The testimony of the doctors, the school teachers and the large city employers counted for nothing with the members of the House who bad been brought into line by the farmers. The division list makes nil interesting if not a very edifying study. Of the Ministers, five representing rural interests voted against the measure and four representing urban districts for it, while Messrs Anderson and Nos worthy * were absent, and Sir Francis Bell was in the Legislative Council. Obviously tho farmers had a majority in the Cabinet and it may he assumed they were not without friends in the ' revising chamber. There does not appear to have been a single member representing an urban district, with the exception of Mr J. M, Dickson, the retiring member for Chalmers, who voted against the Bill.