MEAT EXPORT CUTS

Wairarapa Times-Age, 4 March 1939, Page 6

MEAT EXPORT CUTS

HON. W. NASH REPLIES TO MR COATES MANY STATEMENTS CHALLENGED REVIEW OF NEGOTIATIONS. GOVERNMENT IW CLOSE TOUCH WITH BOARD. (By Telegraph—Ptess- Association.) WELLINGTON, This Day. An assertion, by the Rt Hon J. G. Coates-, M.P. for Kaipara, that apathy and incapacity on. the part of the Labour Government had resulted in the infliction of a grave injury on New Zealand’s meat trade was. replied to by the Minister of Marketing, the Hon W. Nash, yesterday. Mi- Nash described Mr Coates’s statements as angry platitudes, inaccuracies and heroics, and said, that, notwithstanding Mr Coates, he did not think that party politics should or would disturb the pleasant relationship between the Meat Producers' Board and the Government. “Perhaps through a lapse of memory in quoting figures and alleged facts, Mr Coates in professing to cover the history of meat quota negotiations has published some unfortunate distortions even if he has not failed to do very ample justice to- the part- he himself has always played,” said Mr Nash. For myself. I have no wish to deny- or belittle Mr Coates’s claims to credit. But one must correct at least some if his misstatements.

“New Zealand remembers Mr Coates as an qarly advocate of people will recpit a pamphlet, he issued as far back as 1933. More than anybody else, Mi’ Coates advocated New Zeaiand J s acceptance of the principle of the quota. He himself at Ottawa signed the first formal agreement providing that the Dominion’s- exports of mutton and lamb to the United Kingdom would be held within a definitely fixed limit. He advocated butter arid, cheese, quotas. Why does he now whip, himself into such a fury? “SERIOUS INACCURACY.” “Mr Coates’s first serious inaccuracy has to do with his- own Ottawa arrangements. He alleges that New Zealand’s mutton and lamb Allocation in the first year was 4,000,000 cwt, to be increased by 5. per cent in each of the two succeeding years. The published version of- the- agreement signed by Mr Coates on August-20. 1932. binds New Zealand for the year 1933 to mutton and lamb shipments not exceeding “those of the 12 months ended June 30, 1932.’ This was 3,908,000 cwt. “Mr Coates cannot produce evidence from any reliable source that he or any Government with wh.iqh he was associated at any- time- received .for New Zealand a mutton and lamb allocation of 4,000,000 cwt. If he cannot substantiate it, the least he can do is to withdraw so misleading an assertion. I have referred to- the text of the Ottawa Agreement. Its text and Mr Coates’s letter to the British Government are available for anyone to read. “Tq illustrate the fact that the. figures in the letter were not allocations, may I quite as one instance which he 'gave of a figure of ‘not more than 22,000 tons’ as his estimate of our frozen beefexports. This figure at that time yas far short of the Dominion’s requirements. In fact, compared with Mr Coates’s figure, the United Kingdom Board of Trade showed in their 1933 figures imports of frozen beef from New Zealand of more than 35,000 tons. “POSITIVE UNDERTAKING.”

“In regard to mutton and lamb, and distinct from the definite quota limitation to which he committed New Zealand—it was no mere ‘estimate’ but a positive undertaking not to exceed a figure—Mr Coates in his letter also said that New Zealand’s estimated exports for the 1932-33 season were 200,000 tons with a 5 per cent increase in each of the following two years. In no shape or form was this an allocation to New Zealand, and this fact was made clear in all subsequent discussions. “The round figure and the words about a 5 per cent increase were no more than window-dressing. MrCoates’s agreement left the British Government f»ee to regulate, reduce or restrict New Zealand’s meat, whether mutton, lamb, beef or pork, as from June 30, 1934. He secured no colour of a right to a 5 per cent increase, nor to any basic quota apart from the 3,908,000 figure for 1933 and immunity from reduction for the six months thereafter, expiring on June 30, 1934. “Apart from window-dressing in his letter, Mr Coates got for New Zealand precisely the same as Australia got. Does Mr Coates suggest, did he ever seriously suggest, that the British Government undertook to give Mr Coates a 5 per cent increase and gave no undertaking to Australia on like lines? He knows that the policy was clearly to treat both countries alike. This is confirmed by Mr Coates’ statement to the House of Representatives on October 13, 1932, on the Ottawa Agreement: ‘lt is manifestly fair as between one Dominion and anothei that substantially similar conditions should apply to all. and the Ottawa Agreements satisfy this requirement. Wo are not to exceed the estimate given? „ t “Neither Australia nor New Zealand received an allocation except that both of them for 1933 were held to their mutton and lamb figures for the twelve months period to June 30, 1932; that, as I have said, was 3,908,000 cwt, in our case. record high figure.

“I have no wish to parade subsequent arrangements in which the Labour Government and, to some extent, I personally have been But 1 mention two points of fact. With the very valuable help of the Meat Producers’ Board, and its chaiiman, 1 Duncan, and manager, Mr Fraser, who accompanied me to London in 1936 ' 3 /’ and Mr Forsyth who as always did excellent work—we obtained trorn British Government for 1938 a def * nd ® quota that allowed us to send 4,010.000 cwt of mutton and lamb. "As events turned out, tins was a figure well above our export requirements. But it stands as the record high figure ever granted us, or ever granted any Government, Dominion or foreign -incidentally, it was granted to those for whom Mr Coates’s characteristic gibe is ‘socialist planners’ from whom he does not expect commonsense, but we will not try to compete with him in abuse. . , ••Mr Coates also says in reference to the 3 per cent reduction imposed by the United Kingdom Government on mutton and lamb from all Empire sources New Zealand included, foi IJ3J, that ’we are entitled to ask Mr Nash what restrictions have been imposed on the Argentine and foreign meat and with what determination he argued the case of Imperial preference.’ The ans-

wer, quite simply, is that while we have been subjected to a restriction of 3 per cent on foreign mutton and lamb the cut is It) per cent. “As to our determination in presenting the case, this figure can perhaps stand against Mr Coates’s angry platitudes, inaccuracies and heroics. “Finally, throughout all discussions, the Labour Government and I personally have worked and continue to work, both here and in London, in closest touch with Hie Meat Producers Board, said Mr Nash, "it lias been a pleasure as well as an advantage to do so. It is an association that we vaule and appreciate. And. nothwilhstanding Mr Coates, I do not think that party politics should or will disturb that relationship.”