BRITISH FARMERS’ TOUR

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLI, Issue 20347, 20 February 1936, Page 10

BRITISH FARMERS’ TOUR

SOUTH CANTERBURY OVERLOOKED CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PROTESTS The fact that South Canterbury was overlooked in the itinerary of the tour of the South Australian farmers’ party, and has also been excluded from the itinerary of the British farmers who are due in Auckland on February 28. was the subject of long discussion at a meeting of the South Canterbury Chamber of Commerce last night. In connection with the first mentioned visit, the Publicity Committee of .the Chamber reported that early in January a party of South Australian farmers arrived in New Zealand on a visit of educational interest and goodwill, their itinerary having been prepared with the exclusion of Timaru. The committee regretted that this should be so and had written to the manager of the party, enclosing a supply of Timaru publicity booklets. The committee recommended that a protest be made to the New Zealand Government Department responsible for the preparation of the itinerary which allowed visitors a very superficial examination of South Island features. Mr J. M. Jenkins, who presented the r- -rt. said that he could not protest 1 strongly in regard to Timaru being dropped from the itinerary of tours of overseas parties. It had happened on more than one occasion, and previously protest had been made by the Chamber. and an assurance had been given that Timaru would receive fair treatment. British Farmers' Tour The president supported Mr Jenkins, and said that so far as the South Australian farmers were concerned, time had not permitted of a visit to Timaru, and every effort had then been made to acquaint the visitors of facts relating to South Canterbury. Mr Andrews then read the proposed itinerary of the tour of the British farmers, who would go from Christchurch to Dunedin, and then straight back to Lyttelton. South Canterbury again was not included in the itinerary, and it should be. because the district contained some of the model farms of the Dominion. On reaching Christchurch, the South Australian farmers had expressed regret that more time had not been spent in South Canterbury, and they hoped to come back in two years’ time. Many people in the North Island were of the opinion that the South Island was too much neglected, and he thought that a strong protest should be made in the matter. He also quoted statements by an overseas visitor, who had said: “I have been amazed at what the southern part of New Zealand has to offer. .■ • s P it; ® of the very energetic publicity that the New Zealand Tourist Department conducts overseas, the attractions of the South Island are not sufficiently featured.” Mr G. D. Virtue supported the chairman. and suggested that one method would be to protest to the Associated Chambers of Commerce, on which body they would have a big measure of support. , . , Mr W T. Ritchie said that the whole thing seemed to be preposterous. The British farmers presumably were coming out to see farming in New Zealand, and yet they were going through to see the southern lakes and were going back again, and they would see nothing of farming. The first thing that should be done was to find out who was responsible for arranging the tours. , r .. Mr H. Coxhead said that the Government Tourist Department had been blamed, but they were not altogether at fault. The South Australian farmers’ tour had been arranged by the Farmers’ Union, and the same union was involved in the drawing up of the tour of the British farmers. An effort had been made to include a visit to Mount Cook and South Canterbury, but without success. Motion of Protest Mr J. Anstey said that when, tours were being arranged for globe trotters, scenic resorts were of primary importance. but when it came to a party of farmers, who were coming out ostensibly to see farming conditions, the position was somewhat different. Nowhere in New Zealand was agriculture, in its truest sense, to be seen better than in South Canterbury, and he suggested that when such a tour was being organised, that a practical farmer should be consulted. Mr Virtue moved that they forward a strong protest to the Associated Chambers of Commerce asking them to make strong representations in the right quarter in regard to the south Island in general, and South Canterbury in particular, not being suincieiitly recognised in the drawing up of such tours, and that a copy of the letter be sent to the South Canterbury Members of Parliament. The motion was seconded by Mr t. Darroch. who said that the whole thing boiled down to publicity. Tours were drawn up. and were sold and when it was found that only a ce ta “? amount of money was ava^a^ le ; tour had to be cut down, and that was where lack of publicity by the South Island came in. Mr Jenkins agreed with the dis cussion. but said that he thought they would not get as far by asking a Dominion body to push °ne ’stand as they would by a unified effort on the part of the South Island. A motion by Mr Anstey that a practical farmer should be consulted in the drawing up of tours for farmers was also carried.