“NO PANIC POLICY”

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18367, 9 April 1934, Page 8

“NO PANIC POLICY”

DAIRYING DIFFICULTIES C OVERNMHNT ’S ATTITUDE STATEMENT BY MR. FORBES (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, this clay. “The position of tlio Government in relation to the problems of the dairy industry has been so , seriously misrepresented by Mr. W. Goodfellow in a recent statement that it is only right that these points should be corrected,” said the Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes in a statement to-day. "To describe the recent proceedings as tlie, panic policy of our political leaders is an extraordinary perversion of facts. Therefore, it is necessary briefly to survey what led up to the conference of representatives of the industry. This development originated, not with the Government, but through a request from n deputation of the executive of the New Zealand Farmers’. Union, which asked that a Royal Commission should te appointed to investigate the serious position of the dairy industry with a view to assisting those engaged in it. After a discussion with the Government, it agreed that a wise preliminary step would he 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. Goodfeliow, for the Government’s action was' first to secure a thorough consideration of the situation by those with a firsthand knowledge of conditions. 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 presont 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 dairy industry and one Minister. The Government’s attitude, again at this stage, was not one of pressure to send a delegation, hut 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, therefore, informed that it was the responsibility of the industry to frame proposals winch could he submitted to the British Government. It was clearly indicated in a recent cable message from the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs that the first move must come from New Zealand. Meanwhile, there had been no decision to include a , Minister in any delegation. “These facts suggest that, instead of pressing the delegation proposal, the Government refrained from any panic in ova, hut endeavored to steady the position. It wishes-to see such a delegation .properly equipped for its mission before it agrees to the inclusion of a Minister.

“After the way in '.which Mr Goodfellow has 'publicly discounted suggestions for extensions, of onr market for dairy products in other.countries, it is refreshing to find that' .in his most remit statement he -advocate? an;intensive campaign in east Canada, the United States, Panama, the Meditorrnnean, and North Africa. Unfairimputations of want Qf .knowledge and lack of sincerity on the part of my colleagues, the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates and the 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. • .

“A pamphlet issued by Mr Routes nearly a year ago was designed to giy.e the farmers of New Zealand an indica-t Lion of the attitude of the British Government and 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 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, They speak from first-hand knowledge and have 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.’. 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 most anxious 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 co-operation,”