Bert Kelly, “A thought to make thin blood run cold,”
The Bulletin, September 27, 1983, p. 142.

Fred and his son Bill have been arguing whether the National Farmers’ Federation (NFF) should be financed by levies imposed by the government on what a farmer produces. At present, the government imposes a levy on a farmer’s wool to pay for research and promotion of wool. There are many other levies for research and market development for wheat, barley, meat etc, so the levy principle is widely accepted, but so far only for support of particular expenditure of this kind.

The question now is whether all farmers should be forced by governments to pay a certain proportion of their returns to sustain the NFF which fights so effectively for the well being of all farmers, whether they are members of the NFF or not.

The idea is that only half the expenses of the NFF should come from such levies, the other half would come from voluntary membership fees, as is the case now.

I was rather surprised when both Fred and Bill asked me to give them my opinion on the matter. It is a long while since anybody has asked for my opinion about anything. However, Fred explained in his kindly way that he thought my political past had faded far enough into the distance for me now to be able to give an honest answer. I don’t think Fred likes MPs much.

Young Bill led off by saying that he was in favour of the levy ideas. This did not surprise me. Bill is a bright lad, better educated than his father and much faster on his mental feet. He went to an agricultural college and knows all about obscure things like cash flows and so on. There are also rumours that he understands computers and can even operate one. Because of these and other qualities he has quite quickly climbed the local branch ladder of our South Australian agro-political organisation, the United Farmers and Stockowners Association (UF&S).

Because of his education, Bill knows the effective work the NFF has done for farmers. He also thinks the need to have a strong NFF will increase over the years as the proportion of farmers in our population continues to shrink. “Look at the gains the NFF has brought us, Bert,” he said, “And if it was bigger and stronger, it could do even more. If we had this levy idea in operation, the NFF officials would not have to spend so much time worrying about whether they had the money to fight our battles, they would be able to concentrate on the fighting.” Then he complained that there were too many farmers freeloading on the NFF, getting the advantages that the NFF fought to get while not paying their share. Then he added sourly, “You would think the old man could see that. He must be getting too old.” As Fred is two years younger than I am, I did not comment.

Fred also ignored the statement, but concentrated on making his case. He began by saying that, if we were in favour of compulsory payment of levies to sustain our producer organisation, then we would find it hard to effectively fight compulsory unionism and he wouldn’t like that, particularly after the shearers’ strike. Then, he said that bitter experience had taught him that if you assured an organisation a certain future, then it would not be long before it got slack and began to sink back on its feather bed, like BHP. And he thought that, even if the government was only raising half the NFF’s cost it would still be difficult for the NFF to get stuck into the government if this was necessary as it often was. “It is hard to bite the hand that feeds you,” he warned. “And even if the levy money comes originally from farmers, it will have to come through the government’s fingers and could always be cut off by the government.”

Fred then said that in South Australia, the UF&S claimed to have about 85 percent of our farming families as members so, clearly good performance attracts farmers to membership and this is how it should be. He said that if other States performed as well as we did, then they would have most of their farmers as members also. I hasten to say that Fred said that, not me.

Bill listened to Fred’s case more than I expected in a young man. “But what about the freeloaders, Dad?” he asked at the end. “It surely isn’t fair that they should get the advantages we pay for.” I thought that this had Fred cornered, but he replied, “Well, what about the freeloaders? I suppose that about half the people that parsons bury are freeloaders, people who have not gone to church for years and have not paid a cent towards the church’s upkeep. Do you think we ought to have a compulsory levy to sustain churches so that there will be no freeloading there?

Fred won the argument. The thought of asking the government to help run my organisation makes my thin blood run cold.