The Waikato Times. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1939 FARMERS MEET MINISTERS

Waikato Times, Volume 125, Issue 20953, 4 November 1939, Page 6

The Waikato Times. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1939 FARMERS MEET MINISTERS

Although not much that was immediately constructive arose from the discussion between Cabinet Ministers and representatives of the Farmers’ Union executive at Wellington, the deputation did good in that it placed some of the farmers’ problems in their proper perspective. There was no doubt about the sincerity of the deputation in its desire to assist the Government in making New Zealand an efficient productive unit, but it was equally clear that the disabilities about which the farmers’ representatives complained are actively retarding production and interfering seriously with the efficiency of the farming industry. Beyond making another appeal for co-operation the Ministers did not indicate any intention to act upon the advice of the deputation. Mr W. W. Mulholland, president of the Farmers’ Union, reiterated that the major factors contributing to the farmers’ unsettlement were the fear that the war was being used as an excuse for the introduction of permanent State control of the industry in New Zealand; the inadequacy of the guaranteed price for dairy produce; the impossibility of procuring adequate suitable farm labour; the recent amendment to the Marketing Act taking away the safeguard of a price formula. No positive reply to those statements was forthcoming from the Ministers, excepting an admission by the Minister of Labour that there was some difficulty regarding farm labour. The deputation and the country' must have expected an energetic reply to the suggestion—a serious accusation to make with regard to any political party—that the Government was using the war as an excuse for the introduction of permanent State control of industry. If the allegation were without foundation it is strange that Mr Nash did not give the deputation the emphatic reply it deserved. Mr Nash in answer to persistent questioning refused to be drawn into placing a period to the imposition of control beyond saying that the matter would be placed before Parliament when the time came. He flatly refused to indicate what his recommendation on the point would be. Of course no other attitude could be expected, for nobody doubts that Mr Nash firmly believes in, and will strive for, an even greater measure of State control of the primary industries. That is the platform of his party and Mr Nash is a stout supporter of it. But the Ministers could not assure the deputation that the end they all desired, an increase in production and justice for all parties, could be achieved by a continuation of the present policy, and that, from the country’s point of view, is what matters most. Regarding the shortage of farm labour, Mr Webb was able to submit figures that showed a considerable variation from those supplied to him and quoted in a recent statement. He said that 240 vacancies for experienced farm workers had been notified to his department from the North Island and the department was unable to fill them, while in the South Island there was a surplus of 65 experienced men available. Hamilton alone had a shortage of 73 men. The department’s figures alone, of course, do not disclose the whole position. Mr Webb also disclosed that the department had transferred from public works and scheme 13, 3500 men who were now engaged under farm clearance and drainage undertakings and scheme 48, and that the Government was bearing 75 per cent of the cost. These men, however, are not materially assisting to relieve the shortage of men for ordinary farm work A