MR GOODFELLOW’S PROGRAMME.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIV, Issue 118, 18 April 1934, Page 2

MR GOODFELLOW’S PROGRAMME.

REPLY TO CRITICS. Per Press Association. AUCKLAND, April 18. Mr W. Goodtellow to-day replied to various criticisms of his teu-point programme for the dairy industry. In.regard to farm mortgages, he said the uiuy satislactroy way was for the mortgagor and tiie mortgagee to get together. If the money raised by a penny a pound levy on local sales were wisely expended the national income would be substantially increased and both the consumer and the producer would benefit.

In reply to Mr J. A. C. Alluni (president of the Auckland* Manufacturers’ Association), Mr Goodfellow said that if New Zealand’s secondary industries were in such a had way, despite the high tariff and high exchange, surely it was time a trial were given to a low tariff policy based upon efficiency. Answering Hon. C. J. Carrington, Mr Goodfellow said that the fact that the New Zealand marketing methods in Britain were faulty had been repeatedly emphasised by himself and others for fifteen years. If Mr Carrington and other legislators had been sufficiently interested to see that the original legislation sought by the dairy industry had been received by it, the Dairy. Board would have been established on an efficient basis from the start and the national income would already have benefited by many millions.

Mr Goodfellow said he was satisfied with the Prime Minister in his efforts to shield his colleagues, Messrs Coates and Masters. Nobody had suggested that there was any panic at the dairy conference, but he believed something worse than that would have happened if the conference had been aware of the subsequent methods used by Cabinet to deal with the Dairy Board. The board undoubtedly had been subjected to extreme pressure and statements had been made by a responsible Minister which clearly indicated both panic and ignorance. Fortunately, after the board had been badgered into submission the British Government had settled the matter satisfactorily by stating that a quota was not now 'wanted.

The critical stage had now been passed and Mr Goodfellow was of the opinion that the growing resentment of 94 per cent, of the British public who had to pay higher prices, mostly to foreigners, as a result of the bacon quota would prevent any further discussion of a dairy quota with the Dominions in future if matters ■were allowed to rest for a year or so. A preferential tariff in favour of Empire produce, hut based on reciprocal trade, was more likely. Therefore, there was urgent need for tariff and exchange reductions to encourage British imports. Finally, said Mr Goodfellow, Mr Forbes’s statements regarding the development of new markets were incorrect. As managing-director of Amalgamated Dairies, Ltd., he was responsible for the marketing of about 25 per cent, of New Zealand’s butter exports and a large quantity of other produce, and he felt he was well qualified to speak on this question. The-' Government could depend on his company’s full co-operation in any scheme to benefit the industry, but what lie very strongly objected to was the introduction of doubtful marketing experiments. Although it was possible that other and smaller markets could be developed over a long period of years the United Kingdom was our only big customer and there was not a worthwhile alternative market.