LONG CONTRACT NOT LIKED FOR PRODUCE

Chronicle (Levin), 1 April 1947, Page 2

LONG CONTRACT NOT LIKED FOR PRODUCE

NEW PLYMOUTII, Marcli 29. Extcnsiou of tlie New Zealand produce contract with the United Kiug-: doin till 1952 was at oue time diseussed by the New Zealand delegation in ; London last year, but it was possible that the Minister of Finance, Rt. lion. W. Nash, diseussed the matter privately with United Ki'ngdom Ministers, stated a lettcr from the New Zealand Dairy Board received by tlie Central Taranaki executive of the Federated Farmers at a nieeting at Stratford.' The letter contained a summary of the, gencral background to the discussionsj in London 011 tlie" supply of New Zoa-j land dairy produce until 1950. The cxisting contract did provide, that in'l948 discussions would takej plu'ce on tlie question of exteudiug tlie contract till 1952, tlie letter stated. 1 lnl'ornied opinion aniong uearly all ! dairy iiuluslry authorities iu Loudotii ' was definitely against any extension of i the contract for longer Ll1a.11 fourj ! years. Only the supply ternis of tlie, contract extended until 1950, tlie price being lixed only until the end of the I present season. j Short-Term Preferred Under today's conditious of intcr- ! national trade it was impossible to i'ore- { tell the prices tliat wouJd lie charged ; to Neu Zealand by the United King- ! | doin for imports, and because the quan- , ! tity of supply was ari oxtreniely ini- j portant bargaining factor when coiisid- j ering price it was i'elt unwise to com-j niit the Dominion to a contract of such : iengtli. Conditious might be complete-! ly altered by tlie time the contract was! little more tlian hall' conipleted. In : ad'dition it might be necessary for Now. ZeaJand to seek and develop other inar- 1 kets against the day when difiicultioa : might again be experienced in forward- ! ing tlie whole of the country's export-'j i able surplus to the United Kingdoni. | i Under the circunist'ancos, continued I i the letter, a four-year contract was as j j far as it was considored wise to go — • ' it was double the lcugl.li of the theuj existing contract and it was two years loUgcr thau Australia was inopared to .go in eommiting her country to thc , supply of the full exportable surplus. | The position 111 regard to clieese was ; quite dill'ercnt, it was stated, and it j was cxlremoly doubtful whether Britain j vvould have been prepared to cominil j liBrsclf to a six-year contract for the ■ wholq of New Zealand 's exportable! ehecse surplus on the present produc- | tion s,cale. Gertainly the dairy industry; reprctjentatives in London woriT not given any indication whatevor tliat' this would be viewed favourably by the Uniied Kingdom Government, and, in fact, it was poiuted out that clieese ! miglit well beeonie an embarfassnieut lp'ng before 1950. Under the terms of the contract Britain had the right to ; stipulate the respective quantities of 'butter and cheese, and she would no ■ doubt ask for a trahsfer from cheese i to butter as soon as the present quantity of supply became embarrassing.