FUTURE POLICY

Evening Post, Volume CXIX, Issue 31, 6 February 1935, Page 9

FUTURE POLICY

OVEESEAS EXPORTS

NEW ACT. DEFENDED

Quantitative regulation of New Zealand's,, exports and the operation of the provisions of the Agriculture (Emergency Powers) Act were subjects discussed by the Minister of .Agriculture, Mr. Macmillan, in the course of a public address at Eaglan (states the "Auckland Star"). : . The Minister recalled that; in August next, with the expiry of the ■Ottawa Agreement, the British Government would be free to impose a quota on all dairy-imports, including those from New Zealand, or to impose a tax on all imports with preferential margins, as in the Ottawa Agreements. Either ■ alternative was most unpalatable to the Dominion. The levy might have an even worse result for New Zealand if it were to be used to.subsidise the British producer, who would then be able to sell at a low price.' Negotiations with the British Government would shortly be resumed, and" it -was essential that the High; Commissioner for.New Zealand, in.London should have as his adviser someone competent to speak authoritatively for the dairy industry. STRONG HAND. New Zealand held a strong'hand because there were only four foreign louritries that took more goods from Jreat Britain than the Dominion did. They were Germany, France, America, and Holland, all of which had vast populations in comparison with New Zealand's one and a half millions. Over a period of ten years the Dominion had averaged; annually nearly £8,500,000 more in. British imports than Denmark. 'On a'-per capita"basis only the-Irish Free State bought more than New Zealand. New Zealand had carried out the" terms of :the: Ottawa Agreement, both. in letter and spirit. She had. made. the reductions in the Customs' tariff 'which were promised. On the other hand," Australia's 'tariff against English goods was still more than twice as much? as New Zealand's. From the frequents talk'-of meat restrictions, many farmers Had gathered the impression that New Zealand had been prejudicially affected since the Ottawa Agreement. That this was not. the case was shown by the fact that New Zealand beef exports to the United Kingdom since the Ottawa year (1931-32) had increased from 460,205 cwtto 1,039,113cwt. Mutton and lamb had decreased^ from ; 3,908,054cwt' to" 3,624,283cw.t—the Ottawa-year, was one of • he^vy-' killings—-but pork /,had creased from, 123,705cWt/to 386,pO9cwti At present,; under -the short-term agreement,'which .would expire' on .March ,31,'' New..^Zealand;was.'; allowed .'.'. \to double' the quantity ..of .beef and' veal shipped -in "the corresponding period of'.th"e..-Ottawa;year. The fixed:quota fpr.-mutton and lamb would be.sufficient -'for'; the' country's requirements. In "pork**the Australian quota' was 16,70pcwt,,;and the New Zealand 75,000 cwfci' New. Zealand naturally hoped, to .^recei^e similar favourablei treatment when the long-term quotas were discussed. • '.. ', ■'.' _' ■"_'. .'•.' :■•■ _''■'■■■ \ .r CONTROLLED POWERS.^ Referring to the reconstitutionr- of the Dairy Board, the Minister-said that under the old system the nine' elected' members were often pledged to support policies totally", opposed toy. one another,-and some of .the?membe^ijihad; been pledgied'evehvto.i'kbqlislii^&'^bard; itseU.:--'-In^'thbsev.--'^ireunistano^.:v^trie; board - tended to :becbnie: •a.,;mere : '<&&■ bating-. chamber,, incapablenoJ"v;decisr; ive>'action on important' points.:? It was; rrnade clear by r the "vg&yerning legislation, that the «Execiitiyet.Conlmission of Agriculture';jdid;\npt:-h^ve unfettered: power; the; provisions .of . the Act •■ Cabuiet':/had, fult'cohtrqliof thesituation^ and the Orders; in; Council ■making "the: xegu^. lations;,4moreover,, had vtoibej:apprpyed .• by; Parliament; • The regulationsvceas'ed to-\o^(^teVph.'-.lhe;laßt:,d^:;q£;\"'the;-ses«;' sion iiiiiless i;they ■■ wererejcpressly^ ap-, pravedv-'by l; Act,;of .Parliament;;; v i?;: - -^^^^NCIAi,7R;ELIEiBV:;:' "' '■-'■ ■.'"■'' The chief objection to the Act was that it did not provide immediate financial relief for the dairy farmer. The answer was that it was never intended that it should. The object. was.. to. ensure that New Zealand should not slide back in the markets of the world. Immediate financial relief could best be given by relief from the burden of interest, which constituted in most cases over a third of the total cost of the farm. ':.'.. \ .... ■ ■ •. Under the National Expenditure Adjustment Act mortgage rates had been reduced by 20 per cent., and if the projected National Mortgage Corporation succeeded in reducing: rates to 31 per cent, 'or 4 per cent., the burden would be nearly halved. On a .straight 'issue, ; the Minister added, the Dairy Conference, which had fully discussed the question, had heavily defeated the proposal that a direct subsidy should be paid to' the industry.