DAIRY PROBLEMS

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIV, Issue 110, 9 April 1934, Page 7

DAIRY PROBLEMS

REPLY TO MR GOODFELLOW. THE GOVERNMENT’S PART. NO ATMOSPHERE OP PANIC. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, April 9. “The position of the Government in relation to the problems of the dairy industry has been so seriously misrepresented by Mr W. Goodfellow in liis recent statement that it is only right that these points should be corrected,” said the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes) in a statement to-day. “To describe the recent proceedings as the ‘panic policy of our political leaders’ is an extraordinary perversion of the facts. Therefore, it is necessary to briefly survey what led up to the conference of representatives of the dairy industry. “This development originated not with the Government, but through a request from a deputation of the executive of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union, which asked that a Royal Commission be appointed to investigate the serious position of the d airy industry with a view to assisting those engaged in it. After a discussion with the Government it agreed that a wise preliminary step would be to have a conference with representatives of the industry and there decide what action was necessary.

“This conference was called and the members of the Dairy Board and Mr Goodfellow were invited and attended, but if there was any sense of panic in could only have been in the mind of Mr Goodfellow, for the Government’9 action was, first, to secure thorough consideration of the situation by those with firsthand knowledge of the conditions.

REQUEST FOR DELEGATION,

“This representative conference passed many resolutions, among them being 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, the resolution originating from the conference itself. “After the conference the Dairy Board proposed to the Government that the delegation , should comprise two representatives of the daily industry and one Minister. The Government’s attitude again at this stage was not one of pressure to send a dele-j gation but of desire first to. have pro-, posals of a definite and practical nature formulated before the sending of a Minister could be considered. The Dairy Board was therefore informed that it was the responsibility of the industry to frame proposals which could be submitted to the British Government. It was clearly indicated in a, 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, oi pressing the delegation proposal the Government refrained from any panic move, hut endeavoured to steady the position. It wishes to see such a delegation properly equipped for its mission before it agrees to the inclusion of the Minister. MINISTER S KNOWLEDGE. “After the way in which Mr Goodfellow has publicly discounted the suggestions for extensions of our market for dairy products in other countries, it is refreshing to find that in liis most recent statements lie advocates an intensive campaign in the East, Canada, the United States, Panama, the Mediterranean and North Africa. Unfair imputations of want of knowledge and lack of sincerity on the part of my colleagues, Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates and Hon. R. Masters, do not do credit to Mr Goodfellow, for nothing is gained in the discussion of 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 give the farmers of New Zealand an indication of the attitude of the British Government and the Home producers on the question of quantitative regulation, and subsequent developments show the wisdom of providing this early indication of the 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 the criticised Ministers have had the advantage of direct consultation with members of the British Government in regard to its policy for the regulation of supplies to the Home market and thev speak from first-hand knowledge and nave made a close study of the position. Mr Goodfellow’s evident hostility to the Government has led him to question both their knowledge and sincerity, an attitude which, I feel confident, is not shared by the dairy farmers of New Zealand. CO-OPERATION CALL. “The Government is deeply, concerned to secure the most beneficial 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 is mostanxious to do so, and it is of the utmost importance that the Government and all concerned in the industry should work in close and friendly cooperation,” Mr Forbes concluded.

An extract from Mr Goodfellow’s statement appears on page 2.