MR. GOODFELLOW'S CASE

Evening Post, Volume CXVII, Issue 83, 9 April 1934, Page 10

MR. GOODFELLOW'S CASE

MR. FORBES IN REPLY

NO PANIC POLICY*

Maintaining that the Government's attitude on problems facing tho dairying industry had been seriously misrepresented, the Prime Minister (the lit. Hon. G. AY. Forbes), in an interview with a "Post" representative today, replied to tho statement issued last week by Mr. AY. Goodfellow. In his statement, Mr. Goodfellow submitted a ten-point' programme for the consideration of the Government, the leaders of which ho took to task for adopting a "panic policy." Mr. Forbes did not reply in detail to the points put forward by Mr. Goodfellow, but confined himself. to a general defence of the Government in general and the Minister of Finance (the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates) and the Minister of Industries and Commerce (the Hon. R. Masters) in particular.

The position of the Government in relation to the problems of tho dairy industry had been so seriously misrepresented by Mr. Goodfellow in his recent statement that it was only right that those points should be corrected, said Mr. Forbes. "To describe tho recent proceedings as 'the panic policy of our poiitical leaders' is an extraordinary perversion of tho facts," he said, '' therefore it is necessary to briefly survey what led up to the conference of representatives of the industry. This development originated, not with the Government, but through a request from a deputation of the executive of tho New Zealand Farmers' Union which asked that a Royal Commission be appointed to investigate the serious position of the dairy industry with a view to assisting those engaged in it. After discussion with the Government it was agreed that a. wise preliminary step would bo to have a conference with representatives of the industry, and there decide what action was necessary. "This conference was called, members of the Dairy Board and Mr. Goodfellow were invited and attended, but if there was any sense of. panic, it could only have been in the mind of Mr. Goodfellow, for the Government's action was first to secure a thorough consideration of the situation by those with first-hand knowledge of the conditions. THE PROPOSED DELEGATION. "This representative conference passed many resolutions, among them a request that there should be a delegation sent to England. This, according to Mr. Goodfellow, was done 'acting under Ministerial advice,' but those present at the conference know that although three Ministers addressed the delegates, not one mentioned a delegation, tho resolution originating from the conference itself. After the conference, tho Dairy Board proposed to the Government that tho delegation should comprise two representatives of the dairy industry and one Minister. The Government's attitude again at this stage was not oue of pressure to send the delegation, but a desire to first have proposals of a definite and practical nature formulated before the sending of a Minister could be considered. The Dairy Board was theroforo informed that it was the responsibility of the . industry' to frame proposals which could be submitted to lhe British. Government. It was clearly indicated in the recent cable from the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs that the first move must come from New Zealand. Meanwhile, there _ has been no decision to include a Minister in any delegation. These facts suggest that instead of pressing the delegation proposal, tho Government has refrained from any panic move, but has endeavoured to steady the position. It wishes to see such a delegation properly' equipped for its mission before it agrees to tho inclusion of a Minister. "After tho way in which Mr. Goodfellow has publicly discounted, suggestions for extensions of our market for dairy products in other countries, it is refreshing to find that in his most recent statement he now advocates an intensive campaign in the East, in Canada, the United States, Panama, the Mediterranean, and North Africa. "UNFAIR IMPUTATION." "The unfair imputations of want of knowledge and lack of sincerity on the part of my colleagues, Mr. Coates and Mr. Masters, do not do credit, to Mr. Goodfellow, for nothing is gained in a discussion qf very serious and difficult problems by traducing those who hold different opinions. Both Mr. Coates and Mr. Masters live in important dairying districts, and have always been closely concerned in the interests of the industry. The pamphlet issued by Mr. Coates nearly a year ago was designed to givo the farmers of New Zealand an indication of the attitude of the British Government and tho Home producers on the question of quantitative regulation, and subsequent-developments show the wisdom of providing this early indication of factors having so vital a bearing on the future prosperity of New Zealand's dairy industry. The facts were presented so that our own farmers would be well informed, and able to form an independent and correct judgment. Both of tho criticised Ministers have had the advantage of direct consultation with the members of the British Government in regard to its policy for regulation of supplies to the Home market. They speak from firsthand knowledge, and have made a close study of the position. "Mr! Goodfellow's evident "hostility to the Government led him to question both their knowledge and sincerity, an attitude wliich I feel confident is not shared by the dairy farmers of New Zealand. • Tho Government is deeply concerned to secure tho most beneficial i conditions for our dairy producers, .and it is a matter for regret that a gentleman who has shown outstanding organising'ability should in the present crisis take up such an unhelpful attitude. The Government has been asked to help the dairying industry, and in most anxious to do so, and it is of the utmost importance that the Government and all concerned in tho industry should work in close and friendly cooperation." ' i