FARMERS’ UNION

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 60, Issue 81, 16 January 1940, Page 2

FARMERS’ UNION

THE BROADCAST CONTROVERSY. PREMIER DECLINES TO ACT. (Per Press Association). WELLINGTON, January 15. The Prime Minister (the Rt. Hon, M. J. Savage) lias replied to a letter sent him on December 6 by the Dominion president of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union (Mr W. W. Mulholland) about statements said to have been made by the Controller of Commercial Broadcasting (Mr C. C. Scrimgeour). The Prime Minister wrote: “I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, in which you draw my attention to your complaint about a statement made by the Controller of Commercial Broadcasting. Your representations on this matter have been carefully noted, and also your explanation that the conference at which the question of organised opposition to the Government was discussed was held in July. “I feel that the occasion does not warrant the action which you suggest. There is evidently a good deal of confusion over what was actually said on the air, and I notice that in your letter you do not refer to a very positive statement made by the Controller of Commercial Broadcasting in favour of the farmers, and expressing the view that, far from being regarded as ‘ Public Enemy No. 3,’ they were ‘Public Benefactors No. I.’ This statement has obviously escaped your notice. “I can assure you that the Government will at all times use every endeavour to safeguard the interests of all sections of the community.” V Union’s Complaint Restated, Mr Mulholland to-day sent the following further letter to Mr Savage: “Your letter avoids dealing with the matters I raised, and introduces questions entirely outside those to which I referred. I must point out that I had no intention of making an ‘explanation ’ that our annual conference was held in July. I desired to protest that this fact was suppressed and the inference deliberately given was that, the conference had occurred since the war broke out. 1 did Vot mention a conference at which the qLiestion of organised opposition to the Government was discussed, nor did I make any reference to ‘Public Enemy No. 3.’ “My letter dealt with a specific offence by the Controller of Commercial Broadcasting, and there is no confusion over what was said by him, as ho quoted from the ‘Standard,’ and it was to the material quoted that- I took exception. Desire for Apology. “My letter to you dealt with a particular attack on the New Zealand Farmers’ Union ,and I asked you definitely to dissociate your Government from this action and these untrue statements, that you instruct the officer concerned to retract completely without further comment the statements and inferences complained of, and to make that retraction with an appropriate apology in the same manner as he made the attack; and, finally, that you cause the Controller to cease such unseemly conduct as < he indulged in. “You state that you feel that the occasion does not warrant the action which I suggested. I must point out that this refusal of any redress definitely associates the Government with the calumniation of a large section of the people. I am. however, very reluctant to believe that this attack was made at the instance or with the approval of the Government, that the Government regrets it was made, that it has no desire to provoke the farming community, that the Government will .take the action I urge, and that it will do nothing, to render difficult that co-operation of the farming- community with the Government which the present emergency makes so necessary.”