DAIRY PRODUCE.

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 20835, 20 April 1933, Page 8

DAIRY PRODUCE.

THE QUOTA SYSTEM

CONDEMNATION BY FARMERS' UNION. [THE PRESS Special Service.] WELLINGTON, April 19. The crisis which has arisen over the marketing of New Zealand dairy produce at Home was discussed by the Dominion executive of the New Zealand Farmers' Union to-day. Opposition to the quota principle was expressed by the president, Mr W. J. Poison, M.P., who read a telegram he had sent to the Dairy Board supporting its stand against the restriction of New Zealand exports to Great Britain. Mr Poison referred to the obligations New Zealand had entered into as set out in the Ottawa agreement, and urged that the agreement should be given immediate effect in letter and in spirit. A resolution was carried supporting Mr Poison's attitude.

Mr Poison said restriction would lead to stagnation in the industry and would also give to its development a check which might become permanent. It would probably mean the repudiation of the country's obligations, and might lead to serious internal troubles, _much more serious than those existing at the present time. He was perfectly convinced that there was a strong feeling at the other end of • the world in favour of quotas by the now fully politically conscious Farmers' Union of Great Britain. The Ottawa Agreement.

"I say here - that the Ottawa agreement means what it says," Mr Poison said, "and that it is the only means by which we in this Dominion can hope to recover our position. We have got to the point when we have to offer Great Britain something in exchange for what she is prepared to offer us. New Zealand could not afford to admit the principle of quotas. We have to say to the British people that we will offer a quid pro quo. We will stand on the Ottawa agreement and see that it is put into effect on the principle which you undoubtedly intended it when it was signed." If that were not done, Mr Poison went on to say, Great Britain would adopt a plan to help her own farmers and the consequences so far as New Zealand was concerned would be "too horrible to contemplate." The dairy farmers of Canterbury had passed a resolution in favour of quotas, and he thought that they were the last section of the farming community which should have passed such a resolution.

Mr Poison said that after conferring with some of the leading dairy farmers in Taranaki he had sent a telegram to Mr Dynes Fulton stating that the farming community generally supported his attitude regarding a free market and opposing the fatal principle of quotas. In reply the bcjard had stated it was standing firmly to its decision to oppose any restriction on exports. "Further," the reply stated, "we will again approach the Government urging a reduction in tariffs on British goods coming into New Zealand."

Mr Poison said that they might have to agree to some form of quota for a few months, but it should be only a temporary expedient. Mr F. Colbeck said the Ottawa agreement meant that New Zealand should have the same selling opportunities as, say, Yorkshire. Owing to the imposition of the exchange, however, the British exporter was worse off than before. He was convinced that the removal of protection would not adversely affect industries, as protection meant cumulative costs. Mr H. Seifert said he. thought there was no doubt that the demand for quotas came from interested parties. The Ottawa agreement should be adhered to. There should be no qttota. Dairy Board Commended. Mr JR. H. Feist commended the Dairy Board for having taken a long view of the quota question. It was obvious that the glut at Home was not so severe as stated, as a large proportion of the population was not getting all the New Zealand produce it wanted. Mr J. A. McLeavey said he thought the quota principle would demoralise the dairy industry. The British farmer was getting Is 6d per lb for butter and £35 for fat cattle, so the New Zealand dairy farmer could not be doing him much harm. He supported the president's proposals. Mr F. Waite said that if Denmark and the Argentine were to offer Great Britain free trade we must do the same.

Mr L. Hammond said he thought that there was a difference between restrictions and quotas. They could not tolerate both. If butter went down to '4ss or 80s something drastic would have to be done- Perhaps it was not wdse to condemn restrictions which might later be found advantageous.

Mr R. S. Chadwick said it must be understood that New Zealand could not have it both ways. Every country in the world had increased its tariffs since the war, and Great Britain had been the only country to which to send our produce. Could it be seriously suggested that New Zealand could keep its surplus products until the British people could cpnsume it? The great failing was on the part of New Zealand in not taking its quota of imports. Mr P. R. Talbot said that if farmers had to submit to restrictions in their only market, he did not know what would happen to them. The exchange rate had a good deal to do with the emptiness of the ships coming out here.

"Bold Move Must be Made." Mr W. B. Matheson said he believed that a bold move must be made by the Cabinet if it were to save New Zealand's trade. Not only must they stand by the agreement made at Ottawa, but they must insist on free trade with Britain. Mr H. L. Mellpop said a commensurate reduction with the raised exchange should have been made in the tariffs. Drastic reductions -of duties were absolutely necessary. Mr J. D. Hall deprecated the passing of resolutions without full consideration. They should work out a scheme for balancing costs of production and tariffs in the spirit of the Ottawa agreement. Mr Poison said the resolution ha would propose was framed in the