TEN POINT PROGRAMME

Taranaki Daily News, 19 April 1934, Page 4

TEN POINT PROGRAMME

REPLY BY MR. GOODFELLOW BETTERMENT OF DAIRY INDUSTRY. MARKETING METHOD CRITICISED. INCORRECT STATEMENT ALLEGED. By Telegraph—Press Association. Auckland, April 18. Mr. William Goodfellow to-day replied to various criticisms of his tenpoint programme for the dairy industry. In regard^to farm mortgages, he said the only satisfactory way was for the mortgagor and mortgagee to get together. If 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 producer would benefit. In reply to Mr. J. A. C. Allum, president of the Auckland Manufacturers’ Association, Mr. Goodfellow said that if New Zealand’s secondary industries were in such a bad way, despite the high tariff and high exchange, surely it was time a trial Were given a low tariff policy based on . efficiency. Answering the Hon. C. J. Carrington, Mr. Goodfellow said the fact that New Zealand marketing methods in Britain were faulty had been repeatedly emphasised by himself and others for 15 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 sympathised with the Prime Minister in his efforts to shield his colleagues, Mr. J. G. Coates and Mr. R. 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 the Cabinet to deal with the Dairy Board. The board undoubtedly had been subjected to extreme pressure, and statements were made by a responsible Minister which clearly indicated both panic and ignorance. Fortunately, after the board had been badgered into .submission the British Government settled the matter satisfactorily by stating that a quota was not now wanted. The critical stage had now been passed and he 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, ss a result of the bacon quota, would prevent any further discussions 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, but based on reciprocal trade, was more likely. Therefore there was an urgent need for tariff and exchange reductions to encourage British imports. Finally, said Mr. Goodfellow, Mr. Forbes’ 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 felt he was well qualified to speak on the question. The Government could depend on his company’s full co-operation in any scheme to benefit the industry, but what he very strongly objected to was the introduction of doubtful marketing experiments. Although it was possible that other and similar markets could ba developed over a long period of yean the United Kingdom was New Zealand’s only big customer and there was na worth-while alternative market