The Sum 42 WYNDHAM STREET AUCKLAND TUESDAY, JULY 29, 1930 AN ELECTION TEST

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1036, 29 July 1930, Page 8

The Sum 42 WYNDH A M STREET AUCKLAND TUESDAY, JULY 29, 1930 AN ELECTION TEST

THERE is more than ordinary interest for New Zealanders in the Federal General Election today in Canada. To producers, traders and politicians in this country (if they have time to"spare tor study) there are many useful lessons to be gleaned from Canada’s electoral test. Its main interest here, however, concerns New Zealand dairymen whose exports to Canada must, under that Dominion’s new tariff, pay a duty of four cents a lb instead of one cent.

Two large parties contend for favour. One—the Liberal Government Party— went to the country with a Parliamentary strength of 119 members and a record of legislation, including drastic tariff changes, of far-reaching significance not only for Canada, but for the Empire. The other party, the Conservatives, had 89 members in the House at the dissolution of Parliament toward the end of May. Other groups mustered only ‘37, the majority of whom usually have supported the Government, particularly on tariff issues. Labour’s representation was an isolated trio, able to speak vigorously, but unable to exert much influence on legislative measures. The Prime Minister and Liberal Leader is the Rt. Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, and Mr. R. B. Bennett leads the Conservatives. Both are competent speakers and keen Protectionists, although Mr. Bennett, with an eye to capturing two wily birds with one snare, is prepared to go farther than his rival. In his own blunt words he would use tariffs to help farmers and manufacturers alike to “blast a way into markets which bad hitherto been closed to them.”

Naturally each party is confident of success. The odds throughout a sixty days’ campaign have been on the Liberals. It was expected at first that the Conservatives might rout the Government Party because the former had a chance of securing the complete support of the strongly Protectionist French population in Quebec. As a Canadian commentator has pointed out, however, this chance was dispersed by one of those side issues which are so apt to arise unexpectedly in the course of a political campaign. The late Liberal Government in Saskatchewan Province was accused of having favoured Roman Catholic schools and French teachers in its administration of education, and was turned out of office on that ground. The Conservative Government which SDSreeded it is reported to have gone to the other extreme, with tfie result that the Federal Conservatives were caught unawares in a blizzard of protest. Apart from that religious issue the battle between the rival Federal parties has been fought on tariff and Empire trade questions. Since the Liberals have abandoned most of their former Free Trade principles (the old hostility to Protection is crumbling everywhere) the division between them and the Conservatives today is largely their differences of opinion on the extent of protective measures. They both stand for what politicians impressively call “the creation of a great and free Canadian nation within the British Empire,” whatever that may mean in practice. As idealism it sounds well, but if one looks beyond big phrases, it is revealed plainly that what is really meant is Canada first, and after that, the promotion of Empire unity. It would he a great deal easier for electors, though perhaps more difficult for political parties, if politicians would state in the simplest words what they want done and what they mean to do. Because of florid talk and meaningless jargon the Canadian electors have been confused in their task of electing the better party for the guidance and progress of their great Dominion. The Liberals have claimed that they will remain devoted to the ideals of Canadian nationality and will do everything conceivable to place Canada first in politics. The Conservatives, while asserting that the Liberals have stolen their thunder, express zeal for the maintenance of British traditions and Empire unity. Thus, it can be seen clearly that the issue of today’s election, whichever way it may go, will not make much difference to other countries.

DAIRY EXPERTS DISAGREE

SO much depends upon the welfare, strength and progressive development of New Zealand’s dairying industry that misunderstandings or disagreements between experts and practical dairymen should be investigated promptly and eliminated as speedily as possible. An atmosphere of dissatisfaction and mistrust such as that surrounding the dealing of the Taranaki Federation of Co-operative Dairy Factories with the Dairy Division of the Department of Agriculture, in normal circumstances would be deplored, but at a time when the Dominion can ill-afford even the slightest lessening of production efficiency, it becomes a question calling for immediate action and remedy. At a meeting of the Federation held in Hawera yesterday, strong criticism was directed against the Dairy Division. Evidently the discussion was the outcome of comments made by Mr. W. M. Singleton, director of the division, on a report on cheese quality presented recently by Mr. P. O. Veale, the federation’s chemist. Had members shown merely the natural resentment of partisans in a petty or personal dispute between experts, the incident would be of no more than local consequence, but speakers made it clear that hi Taranaki at least there is dissatisfaction with the work of the Dairy Division in its relation to the research branches of such organisations as the federation. “We have practically no co-ordination with the Department of Agriculture and the Dairy Division. ... We are looked upon more or less as outcasts. ... We are getting nowhere. . . . The Dairy Division is not a leader, hut it is a very good follower.” These expressed opinions provide pointed clues to the feelings which have prompted the federation to apply for investigation by a Government committee with the specific object of bringing about better co-operation between the various organised dairying interests, and with the ultimate hope and intention of improving cheese quality. Today it is indisputable that there is ample room for improvement in the quality of New Zealand cheese and the method of its manufacture. The problem was discussed with commendable frankness at the recent conference of Auckland farmers, and it was urged that greater efficiency should be secured and more economical methods adopted. Clearly there is need for a similar frankness and willingness to co-ordinate in the dealing of the State organisation with co-operative concerns. New Zealand’s annual export of cheese totals nearly 80,000 tons and, until the recent decline, this was worth nearly £7,000,000 to the Dominion. At a time when export prices have suffered, there is great need for increased production, a betterment of quality, and more economical methods. The first requirement is being fulfilled and last season’s figures were a credit to the industry. It remains for the Dairy Division to lend strong and willing support to co-operative groups in an endeavour to reduce costs and place the highest possible market value on New Zealand cheese. If an investigation and a revision of methods can bring about an improved system in a severely-criticised Government department, it should be carried out. The Dairy Division, to justify its existence, must lead, not follow.