METHODS OF N.Z. MANUFACTURERS

Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25553, 22 July 1948, Page 6

METHODS OF N.Z. MANUFACTURERS

DEBATE ON LETTER IN ‘‘THE PRESS” CHARGES SAID TO BE UNFOUNDED New Zealand manufacturers’ methods and the quality of New Zea-land-made goods were heatedly defended last evening at a meeting of the council of the Canterbury Manufacturers’ Association, when suggestions were made for replying officially to a letter published yesterday in the correspondence columns of “The Press.” The letter,, signed G. E. Wright, criticised manufacturers and warehousemen, alleging that they were deliberately creating shortages. On behalf of the council’s publicity committee, Mr D. S. Dott reported that a special meeting of the committee had been held to discuss Mr Wright’s letter. It had been decided to submit for the council’s approval a statement in rebuttal of the allegations, which could be released to “The Press.” Mr Dott then read the statement and moved its adoption. “Who is this G. E. Wright? He seems to have a lot of influence with the editor of ‘The Press,’ ” said Mr D. V. Wilson.

Mr G. C. Warren said he knew of Mr Wright, who was a resident of the Kaiapoi district. Mr C. S. Peate suggested that the council would be "making a- mountain out of a molehill” if it decided on replying to Mr Wright in the manner proposed by the publicity committee. “In my opinion, Mr Wright must nave a lot of influence with the editor of ‘The Press,’” said Mr H. C. Urlwin. “I feel we .should go this for We ought to go The Press,’ too, for publishing this stuff. It might cost us £5O or £lOO, out it would make those people shut ?P- He’s accusing us of doing somethl?g,.lUegaL rd take le B al opinion and Id go them. I don’t agree that every time someone says something ro J* e ” should rush into print.” ~ • that the public know that it is the alleged friends of the people that are withholding goods—the fel-low-travellers,” said Mr A. J. White.

Rebuttal of Criticism It w a . s ■. , so mu ch a question of Mr Wrights letter, but of rebutting of New Zealand-made goods, Lawn - They should not attack Mr Wright, but should continue to publicise New Zealand goods in the newspapers. Neither was the editor worrying about Mr Wright; but somethl ng , which manufacturers did not 11 j had appeared in the newspaper, and they should now get counteracting publicity to criticism of New Zealand-made goods. Mr C. B. Myhre said he felt the public was ill-informed, and avidly read criticism of New Zealand-mSde articles. This criticism was not published because the newspapers were biased; they did their jobs well. The anti-New Zealand goods feeling was rife among retailers, who “plugged” English goods. The old idea that an article from England was better, and possibly cheaper than its New Zea-land-made counterpart, died hard. Mr Myhre supported the release of the publicity committee’s statement. Mr Dott said he felt that, as manufacturers, they would, not be doing their duty if they allowed Mr Wright’s letter to go unchallenged. Manufacturers had a duty when such irresponsible statements as Mr Wright’s were made.

There was no doubt that many people wanted to decry anything which was locally made, said Mr E. E. Weston. The same complex was found oversea. “In combating this, we don’t want to be involved in any petty thing,” said the president (Mr F. C. Penfold). “It is time we had a reassessment of New Zealand values. There should be an authoritative and dignified statement from the Manufacturers’ Federation.” Mr Urlwin: Mr Wright’s letter is a local matter, and the federation wouldn’t deal with it. Retraction Suggested Mr Wilson suggested that the publicity committee might ask Mr Wright to discuss his allegations with it; if he were proved wrong, he should be asked to retract his charges. “I feel we should not lower ourselves to take notice of Mr Wright and similar people—and there are many of them,” said Mr F. J. Armstrong. A statement should be put out, showing the true position of New Zealand industry. Mr Wright’s charges were incorrect. and the whole thing was not worth bothering about, but it was worth while to let the people know what industry was doing—aqd it was nothing to be ashamed of. Mr Wilson then repeated his suggestion about a meeting with Mr Wright. Finally, on Mr Penfold’s suggestion, Mr Dott withdrew his motion about the issue of a statement, and the matter was referred back to the publicity committee. Mr Dott said he was surprised to see some members of the council prepared to let a statement about manufacurers’ alleged political tactics go unchallenged.