AUSTRALIAN FEARS

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 252, 21 July 1936, Page 9

AUSTRALIAN FEARS

Possible Chaos in Primary Industries PRIVY COUNCIL JUDGMENT By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright. (Received July 20, 10.20 p.m.) Sydney, July 20. The Privy Council’s decision in the dried fruits case, upsetting the marketing arrangements for Australian produce, is widely debated in all States, and the fear is expressed that chaotic conditions will prevail in primary industries unless the Commonwealth Government is able to suggest a way out. The Federal Cabinet will meet at Melbourne to-morrow to discuss the position. Mr. T. Paterson, Minister of the Interior, discussing the Privy Council’s judgment, said: “It means that trade between States must be free of the quota restrictions which the State Governments agreed to apply within their own borders. In other words, interstate trade will be freer than intraState trade, which is an impossible position.” Mr. R. G. Menzies, Commonwealth Attorney-General, sent a radio message to the Australian Associated Press Agency from the liner Strathaird, en route to Australia, stating that it is impossible to comment on the Privy Council decision until he has seen the complete judgment. It seemed clear, however, that the dried- fruits, dairy products and wheat schemes would all become invalid, and that organised marketing schemes on a compulsory basis either must be abandoned or an amendment of the Constitution at once attempted.

LOCAL SALES ONLY Export Fruit Trade Not Affected Dried fruit exports from Australia are not affected by the decision of the Privy Council in the James v. the. Commonwealth case, according to a statement made yesterday by the Australian Trade Commissioner in New Zealand, Mr. R. H. Nesbitt. The decision applies only to sales of dried fruit within the borders of the Commonwealth itself. The acting-chairman of the Commonwealth Dried Fruits Export Control Board, said Mr. Nesbitt, had made the following statement to the Australian Press:—“The James judgment did not affect the activities of the Export Control Board, which was set up under Commonwealth legislation dealing solely with the export of fruit from Australia, The case before the Privy Council dealt with the fruit law of the Commonwealth which was complementary to the Dried Fruits Acts of the several States of Australia, and the effect of all of which was to regulate the trade within the Commonwealth. The decision of the Privy Council, therefore, did not affect the successful operation of the Export Control Act.” “Iti will be noted from the foregoing/* said Mr. Nesibitt, “that as far as the Commonwealth trade with New Zealand in dried fruits is concerned the position remains unchanged.”