The Press Wednesday, November 7, 1928. The Government and the Canterbury Farmer.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 19461, 7 November 1928, Page 10

The Press Wednesday, November 7, 1928. The Government and the Canterbury Farmer.

An attempt is being made by some of those who speak for the United Party in Canterbury to represent that the Government, in proposing the duties on wheat and flour, had no thought whatever of affording protection to the growers of wheat. The imposition of these duties, it is represented, must be regarded as a base political "dodge," and we may assume that if the United Party were to be given an opportunity to take a part, as Labour's ally, in the government of the Dominion, it would be high-minded enough to take those duties off. As a matter of fact the Government's imposition of the duties was an act of political courage comparable with the Reform Government's introduction of its retrenchment scheme before a General Election or with its determination to complete the Otira railway in the teeth of a storm of opposition from the North Island. Wheat is grown only in Canterbury and North Otago—nearly all of the wheat of the Dominion is grown in Canterbury. Throughout the North Island, and especially in the powerful province of Auckland, a bitter and relentless campaign against " the bolster"ing up" of the wheat industry has been going on for a long time. If the Government had put political conj

siderations before its opinion concern* ing the national good, it would have calculated that on the whole it would have been better to risk antagonising half a dozen Canterbury constituencies for the sake of placating forty or more constituencies which had no direct interest in the growing of wheat. In exactly the same way the late Mr Massey, if he had valued the life of his Party more highly than the well- j being of the Dominion, would Hot have carried out the retrenchment scheme which, as it happened, went near to putting him out of office. So also, if the Massey Government had listened to the angry roars of the North Island against the Midland railway, and had ignored the justice of the case, it would have decided, that the Canterbury and Westland constituencies could be sacrificed, and it would have fobbed us off as the Liberal Administration did throughout its lifetime." In each of these cases—two of thetti of special in* terest to Canterbury—the Government put public spirit above Party expediency. There is not in the record of the Liberal Party Any similar example of courage and justice. The farmers Of Canterbury know well enough how strong and menacing was the pressure brought to bear upon the Government to force it to deny them any protection for their Wheat. Fox every constituency in which the Government's wheat policy would be profitable to the Government, there were six in which it would not be profitable. And in the face of these facts the United Party's newspapers are endeavouring to tell the farmers of Canterbury that the Government is not concerned to assist them! The Canterbury farmer is not over-proud, but he may be excused if he regents being regarded by the United Party as a fool, and since that Party is asking for his vote, he can give it his reply on election day. . ■ i