The Press MONDAY, JULY 5, 1937. Mr Nash's Meat Agreement

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22136, 5 July 1937, Page 8

The Press MONDAY, JULY 5, 1937. Mr Nash's Meat Agreement

Mr Nash has expressed himself as well satisfied with the meat agreement that has so far been the only announced tangible result of his prolonged stay in Great Britain and Europe, but apart from the small and qualified increase in the total allocation for New Zealand meat for 1937, the agreement represents no advance at all on what his predecessors in office have managed to do since Ottawa. His main claims for congratulation are that the basic allocation is now 3,900,000cwt. and that the British authorities have in the agreement recognised the principle of a regulated expansion of imports into their market from New Zealand. The figure of 3,900.000cwt was agreed on in July, 1935, for the 1936 export year, with the proviso that if circumstances were favourable, this figure could be increased. The principle of a regulated increase in imports was enunciated first at Ottawa, and has been reaffirmed since on several occasions, and has, in fact, been the basic principle underlying all the negotiations of New Zealand with Great Britain since Ottawa. There was, of course, one notable departure from this principle—the British meat policy as set out in the thoroughly disturbing White Paper of March, 1935, which amazed New Zealand with its suggestion for a levy on imports, or else a drastic reduction of imports to Great Britain. It was a complete reversal of all previous British ideas on the subject, and would have been disastrous to New Zealand, which depends almost exclusively on Great Britain for a market for meat exports. Australia was at first inclined to accept the proposals, but it was the uncompromising opposition of Mr Coates, who was then Minister for Finance, that eventually secured the support of Australia and finally ended in the abandonment of the idea of a levy on Dominion mutton and lamb. The agreement that was reached then, in July, 1935, fixed the amount of imports from New Zealand at a maximum of 3,901),000ewt, and was thus more generous to New Zealand than the allocation previously adopted, that for the Ottawa year, in which exports from this country were a record. Since then there have been negotiations for a long term agreement, which apparently has not yet materialised, as Mr Nash's agreement is for the calendar year 1937 only. The total allocncation will be 4,010,000cwt, the largest that New Zealand has ever had, but it is likely that if there is any increase in total exports over the 3,530,700cwt shipped for the calendar year 1936, that increase will be extremely small. It is, in fact, improbable, judging from recent figures, that there will be as heavy shipments as there were last year, in spite of the significant increase in the flock total of the Dominion. The whole complexion of the meat question has changed materially during the last 18 months. Britain has embarked on a policy of rearmament, and this, with the rise in the prosperity of the United Kingdom as industries have continued to flourish, has taken away much of the tension that has been apparent since 1931 or so. Again, Britain is much more favourably disposed now to the accumulation of stocks of foodstuffs than was the case two years ago. And finally, the protection willynilly of the British farmer by quotas and levies against all competitors- seems to have been given up in favour of a form of direct subsidy to agriculture. The British problem has, moreover, always been one concerned rather with beef than with mutton. Mr Nash has gone to England to sell something that England would have bought willingly anyway. The details of the agreement as cabled out show actually no advance, but a retrogression. The maintenance of the basic allocation at 3,900,000cwt, which was secured in 1935, depends upon the contingency that the prices of British lamb and mutton in the first half of 1937 shall not fall appreciably below the level of the two previous years. If there is an ap- i preciable fall, an unlikely happening admittedly, the basic allocation is to be clipped by 3 i per cent. New Zealand is therefore 3?< per cent, more vulnerable than before Mr Nash went to England. It is not clear that this agreement has been reached without concessions of some sort from New Zealand.