FARMERS IN POLITICS.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4415, 17 May 1922, Page 4

FARMERS IN POLITICS.

• THE THAMES ELECTORATE. MR. A. A. ROSS AT NGATEA. • NUMEROUS QUESTIONS ASKED. At the invitation of the local branch of the Farmers’ Union Mr A. A. Ross, the leader of the Country Party, which is to contest several electorates in the Auckland province in the interests of, the farming community, addressed a meeting of settlers in the Ngatea- Public Hall on Saturday evening. Mr Ross was supported by Captain F. Colbeck, the farmers candidate for the Ohinemuri seat, and Mr McAlpine sub-provincial secretary of the Farmers’ Union. There was an attendance of about. 50 settlers, who elected Mr G. T. Davidson to the.chair. Mr Ross, speaking on the political situation, said he was’ not making an electioneering speech, as it was a long time till the general elections,, but it would be a good opportunity to give a few. of the principles of the party he represented, Iff was a happy idea calling it a country party. There was no* doubt whatever that the country people did not. have the voice in the country’s affairs that they should have. The country, districts were scattered and the people were not able to get together as they were able to do in the town. He did not wish to make any antagonism between the town and the country, but he maintained that the country people did not. have a proper voice in public affairs. Ths problem: they had set out to solve was to give the country people a. fair 'share in the management of Nov/ Zealand. The farmers' energies had been dissipated somewhat, as previously some had voted Liberal, others Labour, and others Reform. PUBLIC EXPENDITURE. The farmer, maintained 'Mr Ross, was not getting a fair deal. Either the price of manufactured .articles must go down or the. price of farm products, must go up.' The price, of the farmers’ produce had gone cjpw.i far below pre-!w.ar times, while the implements and other necessities to the farmers had gone up. One of the greatest questions at the present time was the enormous increase in public expenditure. In 1916-17 the expenditure' merely for departmental 'purposes was nearly £8,000,000; in 1920■2l it was over £15,,000 000. % Mr Massey had then said that if nothing were done in this matter the country woul 1 be faced with ruin, but in the year 1921-£2 the expenditure was over £16,000,000. The expenditure had gone up £8.000.000 since. 1916-17. The townspeople were benefiting by that expenditure more than the primary producers. LABOUR TROUBLES. Speaking regarding the labour question, the speaker said that there hail been for a number of years an arbitration''court to fix the wages pt the workers. Things went on all right when the wages were going up. The employers would abide by the decisions of the court; but when the wages were going down the men would not,, and strikes were liable fo happen. When the wages were on the downward trend it wjis where the failure of the arbitration wps seen. When it came to a serious question the men would not abide by the decisions, and the question would have to he settled afterwards by a conference. He recommended the Canadian : system. Canada and certain industries called key industries, and there could not be a strike or lock-out until a tribunal had heard both sides of the question. Most of the cases were settled in that manner) and where 6hey could not be so settled the pub* lie was allowed to make the decision. There was another defect in the arbitration -system. When a dispute arose between the employer and employee, 'and increased wages granted to the latter, the employer could easily pass it bn to the public, who had ' to pay all the ime„ The public how- ’ even, was never., represented at the arbitration court. He predicted that no suitable solution would be found to that defect in the arbitration law. The country were not at one in the Arbitration Act. GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE. There was another matter, ihe continued, at which they were at variance with the Government, and that was Government interference.' The Board of Trade ,was - set up and embargoes were put on several articles. He referred to this as interference. Regarding the embargo on hides, the < speaker su’d that a number of butchers had purposely damaged ; hides to evade the- embargo. Though i the hides were cheapen, boots did not ■ come down in price. He thought the , embargo on potatoes was foolish, as I it restricted the potato production, I The Board of Trade had thought 'the

butter would be too high in price and a tax was put on the exported, butter. • That meant that cheap butter was being given to the general public at the expense of; the producer. He main- , tained 'that if a party were in power representing the primary producer, and not afraid of speaking .against the Government, those things would not have happened. Referring to the shortage of sugar, he said that the negotiations with the Sugar Company to supply the commodity at a less price Hihan what was being obtained in other countries was the means of having the New Zealand sugar supply limited. He maintained that New Zealand would have been much better off if there had not been any Government interference with regard to sugar, SOLDIER SETTLEMENTS. Speaking about soldier settlement, the speaker said the Government knew that a great number of returned soldiers would require to go on the land, and- the Government was supposed to manage this affair. An outline of a proposed scheme had been put before the Government to the effect that, the Government should as ■soqji as possible settle the soldiers om unimproved land, employ the soldiers on the unimproved blocks which would be got ready for occupation, and for cutting up into farms. Those soldiers .'unsuitable for farm, work would be weeded out and the inexperienced gaining experience. The land could then be cut up and settled. The Government had not taken the slightest notice of the suggestion. The returned soldiers who 'had been settled early had not been so badly treated as a high price was not paid for the land. Having so much money provided for this purpose was one of the ca uses of the great wave of speculation which spread over the land. If the proposed scheme had been adopted it would have saved New Zealand millions ’of ‘pounds. The scheme would have been inaugurated with a certain amount o'; success. Under the present scheme a Job of the soldiers had had a. bad i;un, and a lot would be failures whereas they might have been a 'success. If the representatives of the primary producers had been in the House that would never have happened, “UNFLEDGED TO ANY PARTY.” Mr Ross outlined the formation of the Farmers’ Party, which would be unpledged to any party. The farmers had previously been very disunited ’with regard to politics. The Country Party would provide a comi mon platform on .which the farmers could unite. In a no-confidence motion the party would not promise to support,any particular party. That would be decided when the time came. It had been said that it. was useless makijig a farmers’ party, as other factions would combine to look after their own affairs. His reply was that they only wanted justice. It was not only their right, but their duty, tp get more say in the Government. of the country. The course mapped out for the party was the most likely to lead them to success. It had been maintained .that the present was not opportune, as it may allow another party to get in. A Voice : Hear,, hear ! , The, speaker went ori to say that i,f the farmers’ movement* took away some supporters . of the Government and reduced their majority it was to the advantage of the. country. As for the Labour Party getting in, he considered it was only a bogey—Labour had “shot its bolt.” He quoted Australia, where in many Stales Labour had been turned completely out. Though there were many Laboursympathisers among the farmers, he thought they would support the. Farmers’ Party. He maintained that the Country Party would get a fair measure of support from the farmers who would otherwise vote labour. The speaker resumed his seat amid applause. , “DUMB DOGS.” Captain Colbeck said that at a .farmers’’ conference 22 years ago ‘he matter of forming a farmers’ political party had been raised, but was turned down because injure Mr Seddon. There might be some who would always maintain that the time was inopportune. If there 'had been a Farmers’ Party in Parliament many o' the disagreeable measures passed would not have.existed. The workers had the Arbitration Court to defend them. The farmer had nothing; he had to depend on the market, of the world. When the embargo on hides had been lifted there had been a rise in price from Is Id to 2s 3d per la. The farmers were being used as a chopping block to provide the public with cheap boots which they did not gefi "Mr Massey is great on his square deal,” he declared, .“but he hasn’t shown it so far.” The speaker deprecated the embargo on potatoes. If the farmers had representation in the House those things would not have happened. There were ,27

I farmers in the House, and none of them, except the late Mr v Powdreil, liad done anything. The speaker had s termed them as “dumb dogs.” He supported Mr Ross’ contentions tha- ■ prices must either go up or wages go , down. He admitted that things were ; on the turn, but they were not top [ rosy yet. He had known of farmers whs had walked off their farms. A , man was better off when he was ■ working for a boss. (Applause.) ENLIGHTEN THE CITY FOLK. 1 Mr McAlpine, who was invited by 1 the’ chairman to speak, said • were too many city men in the House. ' There was only one place to get at ! the city people, and that was through '■ the House. The townspeople were ! concerned with the Rangirifi hills. because they -could not get their motor-cars through, but .they do not - use some off the country rpads and ’ were therefore unconcerned regarding them,, He believed that the towns- , people would give the country people anything, but the city folk did not know of the true conditions in the ( country. The Reform Party was not a farmers’ party.’ The member of a ' party had to voice the party’s views, and if he did not he was not allowed to speak for the party. There was at ( present no party in the House to voice the farmers’ views. ‘‘We’ve ’ never had a fair deal, not -these last fqur or five years, anyhow, simply because we have had no cohesion,” he , concluded. REFORM OR LIBERAL. > With the speeches over question , time arrived, and quite a number of i questions were asked and answered. - Mr Hallyburton Johnstone asked ■ that if .the farmers expected to have • only six members in Parliament, why ■ did they not put up against Opposi•l tion seats where they are certain of ! securing seats. He thought Mr Ross . 1 might have a very tight fight for it in the Thames electorate. ! A Voice :No “might” about it. , 1 Mr Ross said the Government had not. always had the big majority it • had at the present time. It w.as ’often found that a small party was a “confounded nuisance” in Parliament. The Country Party did not consider what seats, Reform or Liberal, when it was decided to enter into politics, but/only whether there was a chance to win the seat, and the Thames electorate had been one of the chosen seats. The speaker was in the electorate, and he had been selected to . contest, it. They were treating the ! matter irrespective of how it affected I any party. Even if the fanners got only a. half dozen' in the House, it would be a help. i A Voice : Do you think you’ll get any in ? . ' | Mr Ross : That remains to be seen. ' STRENGTHENING THE UNION. Mr W. Cooper : How many farmers ! in this district are members of the Farmers’ Union ? Very few, I think. I Mr Ross: The Farmers’ Union 'has I not had much influence in some ! cases, but it is the only body which tends to unite th.e farmers. The Farrn- ! era’ Union had not received the supI port it should from the farmers, as it had kept out of politics. There was a large number of farmers in the Dominion, and. probably in this electorate. not members of the Union. There is only a small percentage belonging to the Farmers’ Union. He | hoped that the movement would tend to bring many more farmers to the Union. Mr Vowles,: Would it not be better to organise the farmers first and th# politics after ? Several voices : Hear, hear ! Mr Ross: That’s what they have been trying to do since the Farmers’ Union has been in existence, and it has been a miserable failure. Mr McAlpine, replying to Mr Vowles’ question, said the commercial side of .the farmer was organised through the co-operative concerns. He maintained that it was .through the Farmers’ Union that this had been brougnt. about, but the farmers had forgotten. The political side of the farmer’s life had not been organised, but he predicted that when the farmers'do take an interest in politics the branci. meetings would be well at?, tended, and the Union properly organised- He had advocated politics ever since he had taken an intelligent interest in the Union because there had not been sufficient matter for discussion. Mr Vowles : That’s all right as an ideal, but no good in practice. What’s the use of Coming,here and trying to ’ convert us when you can’t convert the leaders of your own union ? Why, ,‘t hasn’t got past your own province I Catpain Colbeck : Oh, yes, to Nelson and Southland. Mr Ross said it was only the Auckland province which had showp mucn life, and this movement was only one of the many matters to which the Auckland province had given the lead. The other provinces would:, he thought, follow as they had done in a good many other cases.

Mr Vowles 'still thought they were beginning to organise at the wrong, end. There was disunity amongst: the Farmers’ Union. Mr Ross said that what Mr Vowles had said about disunity among the Farmers’ Union was true, but the Union was trying to provide a platform on which the farmers could uni.te. It was essential that if the farmers were to Have any say in public affairs they must unite. AGRICULTURAL BANKS. Mr Davidson: If. you are elected, would you support the proposal of agricultural banks ? Mr Ross said that on the fact o>f it, it appeared to be a reasonable proposition. He was. thoroughly sympathetic with the movement. SYMPATHY FROM THE TOWNS. Mr Cooper: How do you propose to obtain votes from the. townspeople 9 You propose only to put-farming matters forward. That Wfn’.t interest the townspeople. Mr Ross: I don’t see why there should be any atagonism. Our policy would benefit itjhe town as well a*’ the country, and we will try .to convince the townspeople that we can deal justly with the whole question. Mr Davidson upheld the view that the opinion in the towns was that the welfare of the farmers was '‘(he welfare of the townspeople. FOR THE FARMER ONLY. Mr Blacklaws said, he had seen by a report in the “Gazette” of. a “recent Netheiton meet'ting that the Country Party was out for the farmer and the farmer only. He maintained that they wotrtld not get full support to tha.t policy. ' Mr McAlpine said mat what would benefit the farmer would benefit the Mr Blacklaws thought that the "farmers, and farmery only” policy * " <

would be detrimental to the candidate. Mr Ross contended that what they wanted was justice for the farmers. The farmers’ planks would be those that could be ascribed to by a considerable number pL those in the towns. VOTES OF THANKS. On the motion of Mr Davidson a vote of thanks was carried by acclamation to Mr Ross for addressing the meeting and ifbr the assistance of Captain Colbeck and Mr McAlpine. A vote of thanks was similarly passed to the chair.