The Press WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1936. The Future of the Meat Trade

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21865, 19 August 1936, Page 10

The Press WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1936. The Future of the Meat Trade

Pyne, Gould, Guinness, Ltd.’s, review of primary produce markets during the season 1935-36, extracts from which were printed in “The Press” yesterday, shows that all classes of farmers can look to the future more hopefully than at any other time since 1929. The outlook for wool is particularly promising. Stocks in both producer and consumer countries are at a low ebb and, although the international trade in woollen goods is slow to recover, it does not seem likely that the season 1936-37 will see any substantial recession from the values that ruled in the recent sales. For but-, ter the position can also be regarded as sound, with a probability that the present relatively high price level will be maintained for some little time. It is only in respect of meat that misgivings will be felt. At present growers of mutton, lamb, and beef have little to complain of, since prices have been at a profitable level and quotas have not created any problem of over production. Nor is it likely that the British Government will allow prices to fall. What justifies misgivings is the uncertainty of British policy. In the year following the Ottawa Conference Mr Elliot pinned his faith in quota regulation as a means of stabilising the market, and protecting the British meat industry; the White Paper of February, 1935, expressed a desire to abandon quotas in fhvour of a levy on all imported meat, the proceeds to be used to assist the home industry; the present policy is to combine quotas with a levy on foreign meat imports; and what policy will be adopted a few years hence it is impossible to, predict. As Pyne, Gould, Guinness, Ltd., point out in their review, the future of the meat trade depends on “ a balance between political’ and “economic factors.” The imposition of a levy and the abandonment of quotas, as suggested in the White Paper, would be disastrous for New Zealand meat growers. At the proposed rate of £d a pound the cost to them of the levy would be more than £1.060,000; and.in addition they would havfe to face ruinous competition on’ a glutted market. In any case, the British meat problem is primarily a beef problem; British mutton and lamb growers are not, and have not been, in difficulties. It would be most unjust if New Zealand, which supplies less beef to the British market than any other*. Dominion, should be called upon to pay more than any other Dominion towards the subsidising of the British beef industry. New Zealand has therefore an interest in seeing that the quota system works smoothly; and it can at least be said that she ha» observed her quota commitments faithfully. .Unfortunately there is evidence, as we pointed out a few days ago, that Australia has made little attempt, to keep to her meat quotas, in addition to which the activities of the Australian Meat Board have now, been declared ultra vires of the constitution. According to the figures given by Pyne, Gould, Guinness, Ltd., South American shipments also have been in excess of the quota limits. This failure to comply with quota agreements, although it is probably due to nothing more than a lack of proper administrative machinery, is disturbing for. New Zealand, because it may lead the British Government to abandon the quota system as impracticable..