The Press MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1963. U.K. Agriculture

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30225, 2 September 1963, Page 14

The Press MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1963. U.K. Agriculture

In March this year the “ Economist ” printed a contribution from an unidentified economist in New Zealand on "How Not to “ Grow ”, A satire on New Zealand's recent economic policies, the article was resented by some of those responsible for policymaking in this country but widely appreciated by most persons able to take an impartial and intelligent interest in the country’s affairs. The “ Economist ” last week published another anonymous, outspoken criticism “ from a distinguished “ outside economist ”, and asks, “ How unfair does it “ really seem? ” The target this time is the “feather- “ bedding ” of British agriculture. Written in the form of a speech to the House of Commons by a new, and radical, Minister of Agriculture, the article outlines the author’s proposed new agricultural policy. A return to the free market of the pricing and sale of agricultural products is the essence of the policy he outlines. The British practice, over many years, of paying huge sums from taxation to support farm prices, had resulted, he said, in inefficient farm enterprises being kept in existence which “for the “ farmers’ sake, as well as “the country’s, had better “ have been closed down ”. Other consequences were unsaleable surpluses of eggs and milk; the bedevilment of relationships with Commonwealth and other countries; a high-cost, inefficient system of distributing farm products and supplies; and ever-increasing demands on the Treasury. So far from being a military asset, the author contends, “ a system “ of agriculture constituting " a greater military liability “ could hardly be imagined ” because most of its final products were based on imported feedstuffs. Because of the reduction of their

export income resulting from the British policy, many Commonwealth and other small countries—- “ New Zealand is the out- “ standing example ” —had found themselves compelled to industrialise their own countries, thus reducing their imports from Britain. The “ Minister ” outlines proposals for preventing dumping on the British market, mainly by discriminatory tariffs. “By acting “ in this way we will offend “ the powerful—particularly “ the United States and “ France, not to mention “ Soviet Russia—and give “ aid to the weaker countries, such as New Zea- “ land, Denmark, and the “ smaller sugar-producing “ countries, who do not have “ a large home market from “ which to levy a high inter- “ ilal price for agricultural “ produce for the purpose of “ subsidising their exports, “even if they wished to do “ so ”.

This neatly sums up the grievances of the New Zealand meat and dairy industries (and other primary producers in other countries) over dumping on the British market in recent years. With these same aggrieved interests the “ Minister ” sees eye to eye when assessing the effects and advantages of the very different policy he advocates: after generous compensation for the displaced British farmers, a more efficient disposition of the nation’s labour force and other resources, and a huge saving in subsidy expenditure. If New Zealand readers are inclined to marvel at the power of vested interests which prevent such a manifestly sensible policy from becoming reality, they should turn back to the earlier “ Economist ” article. Economic common sense is a scarce commodity —so scarce that it is usually labelled “’For export only ”.