NO REGIMENTATION

Manawatu Standard, Volume LX, Issue 160, 6 June 1940, Page 6

NO REGIMENTATION

NEW ZEALAND FARMERS. DIRECTOR-GENERAL'S VIEW A definite indication that he did not approve of the regimentation of farmers in New Zealand, even under the new emergency regulations was given by the Director-General of Agriculture (Mr A. H. Cockayne) at the sheepfarmers’ conference at Massey College yesterday. In outlining the position under .the regulations, he expressed the opinion that the best results would be obtained if individualism was allowed to continue. The New Zealand Government had passed the same legislation as Britain’s, said Mr Cockayne. That meant that the Government had taken powers which were tremendously wide. The regulations, as they concerned him, in point of fact gave the very widest powers for the controller ‘ to tell farmers what had to be done and to, see that they did it. There was a feeling among a section of the community that what was necessary was the complete regimentation of farmers. He did not agree with that. He liad 6een regimentation tried in Russia, Germany and Holland, but it. had failed, and it was felt that as far as the sheepfarmer was concerned the best could be got from him as an individual rather than as a conscript. There were certain things essential, the speaker proceeded, and one of them was for the sheepfarmer to forget the difficulties of tlie past and “put his back into the job.” Providing the sheepfarmer of New Zealand was given fair treatment by other sections of the community, there was no need to fear for the future of farming in New Zealand. VARYING CONDITIONS. Mr H. M. Christie, chairman of the Wool Committee, said that when conscription of farmers was talked of the varying conditions throughout the country had to be remembered. He was satisfied tliat no mail could do anything in the nature of collective farming In this country. It would never work if he did.

Mr J. E. Hewitt (Mangamaire) asked how it was possible to increase production unless that production was, planned and controlled. When, it was controlled it must involve a certain •amount of regimentation. Mr Cockayne said that he could not visualise the regimentation of farmers in New Zealand. The only case in which this aspect might enter would be in telling them what they should not do rather than what they should do. This was something which must come. For instance the “all-in” policy of killing lambs would have to cease. It was very strongly impressed on his mind that "the sheepfarmer in particular did his best by volition rather than by regimented instruction. Certain things would have to be told to. the sheepfarmer,- including the type of commodity which he should put his best efforts into producing. BRITAIN’S NEEDS. The farmer was demanding to know from him what should be done, said Mr Cockayne, and he was going to speak plainly. He had been asking the Government what should be done and the Government in turn was asking the British Government. Britain had given New Zealand certain information about what she particularly desired. She wanted crossbred wool, beef, bacon and eggs, and would take as much as she possibly could of mutton and lamb. He was sincere when he said that the duty of the siieppfarmer in the coining season was to see that stock were looked after as well as they possibly could be. Instructions like that were of more value than any direct regimentation. - It was the duty of farmers to carry on their business in such a way as to increase production, even if it did not go into tlie channels to which it was eventually hoped it would. The reluctance of Britain in not giving a definite instruction was that she might not be able to live up to it 36 far as shipping was concerned. So far as sheepfarmers were concerned England wanted ttyem to carry on. He did not think that' farmers would need to complain of any lack of frankness by the Government in the near future.