The Evening Star TUESDAY, MAY 1, 1934. BARREN DISCUSSIONS.

Evening Star, Issue 21708, 1 May 1934, Page 8

The Evening Star TUESDAY, MAY 1, 1934. BARREN DISCUSSIONS.

Captain Briscoe, M.P., an English visitor to New Zealand, has been pouring' oil on the troubled economic waters. He stated at Auckland that New Zealand had nothing to fear from implort restrictions on Britain’s part, for if the two countries could get together satisfactory arrangements could be reached. Meanwhile it would not be a had thing if conflicting interests inside New Zealand could get together and ceaso a rather unedifying wrangle. In the north Mr Goodfellow has been in provocative mood, and the manufacturers have become so nettled by his attacks on secondary industries incidental to his Freetrade agitation that they have retorted by saying some very hard things about the conduct of the dairying industry. This, however, is not the only part of the Empire where gravie concern exists over the new British agricultural policy. Mr Stevens, the Canadian Trade Commissioner in Australia, has recently outlined to a Sydney audience how the country ho represents stands to be afiected. “ Whcui the Ottawa agreement expires, Major Elliot’s actions can be forecast to a certainty,” said Mr Stevens, “ and I do not think they are going to do ns Hindi good. He will get a low duty on doiniraou loodstnfls with a preference.

He shares the views of Mr J. H. I Thomas about dominion competition. Wo arc faced with curtailment of our exports, which is going to affect our national economy seriously. The problem is not insuperable, but action must be the result of a big decision, ft is not going to bo sufficient simply to hope to get by or to offer au exchange of relatively unimportant preferences.” Canada has to support ten million people, but if the Canadians had to consume all their own wheat seveneighths of the wheat lands would go out of production ; 59 out of every 100 boxes of their apples would remain unpicked, and 85 out of every 100 cases of tinned fish would not be inquired. It is, of course, not contended that, supposing the fullest measure of success attends Mr Elliot’s schemes, Britain would be self-supporting in the matter of foodstuffs or raw material for the great bulk of her manufactures. At present Britain produces about three-eighths of her food supply. The remaining five-eighths has been termed a “ target for all the food surpluses of the world.” Some of the figures which are emerging from discussions between Mr Stanley Bruce and his former colleagues at Canberra are most striking. Thus, Britain takes 94 per cent of the world’s exports of bacon, 96 per cent, of the world’s exports of mutton and lamb, half of the world’s exports of cheese, and 70 per cent, of the world’s exports of butter. The value of the British market to agricultural producers abroad is, therefore, considerable. In this way a remunerative level of prices is of value not only to British producers, but to all suppliers of the market, and an nnremunerative level is not an advantage to anybody. It is therefore in the interests of producers abroad,' it is urged, to negotiate agreements for the regulation of imports. It is therefore not surprising to learn that out of the £1,200,000,000 which in more prosperous days Britain had annually for spending abroad, no less than £500,000,000 went for foodstuffs. But through curtailed income from exports Britain now has nothing like that annual sum to spend. It is for that reason that Britain increased her area under wheat by 6,000,000 acres in one year, and has put a duty of 3s per owt on foreign oats equivalent at to-day’s values to 60 per cent, ad valorem. The tendency in the dominions was at first to regard the question from their own point of view solely. In New Zealand that outlook seems to be persisting longer than it is elsewhere. The tone of discussions in Australia is apparently far more moderate than it is here, for Britain’s difficulties are recognised and admitted. However, no way out for Australia has been discerned. “At this stage in our history,” states the ‘ Sydney' Morning Herald,’ “ any restriction upon our agricultural development would bo serious. A policy of restriction in regard to wheat is bad enough, but if there were to be added to it similar policies for dairy produce, meat, and fruit the effect would be disastrous. For it is in these industries that our hopes for intensive farming and increased output are chiefly centred. It is of little advantage to us, however, if we export more and more of our products and receive less and less by way of return. For this reason wo shall be forced, sooner or later, to co-operate in measures designed to ensure that the development of our natural resources does not add to the already disastrous depression of the principal market, and that that which wo produce shall bring us at least the cost of production. It is far better that we should take our share in the work of overcoming the present disorganisation in a spirit of goodwill and compromise, in collaboration with Britain, who is our principal customer and the principal world market for butter, cheese, bacon, mutton and lamb, and other products. We may do this now or in the near future, confident that a plan will be evolved to meet our own especial developmental needs, as well as. those of Britain.” Nevertheless, one searches in vain in the speeches of politicians, of producers, of expox-ters, or of manufacturers for any lead or any really feasible suggestion beyond the haziest references to co-operation. The trouble is that some 70 per cent, of the world’s population is engaged in agriculture and has nothing like the purchasing power it had before prices of its products underwent a disastrous fall.