MEAT EXPORT BOMBSHELL

Evening Star, Issue 21786, 31 July 1934, Page 8

MEAT EXPORT BOMBSHELL

DIFFICULT PROBLEM OF CONTROL BEEF AND PORK MARKED FOR HEAVY RESTRICTION [From Our Parliamentary Reporter.! * WELLINGTON, July 30. Ministers further discussed late today the British Government’s proposals involving restrictions, in New Zealand’s meat exports to Britain. They appear to be greatly concerned because the proposals raise a fresh political problem of magnitude—that of controlling farmers’ outputs, which will be highly difficult in practice. This point was put to the Prime Minister by your correspondent to-night, when he was asked if the Meat Producers’ Board would be given this onerous responsibility. “ Obviously someone takes charge of exports,” replied Mr' Forbes, “ and we are discussing .the matter with the Meat Board on Tuesday. We cannot yet say how it is to be done, but we know it requires to be done.” Mr Forbes was asked if the public could be permitted to know the exact proposals submitted from the London Conference. He declined to make this final cable public at present, considering that it was first necessary to submit the position to the Meat Board. “ After all,” he commented, “ it is a question of general agreement on the results of the_ conference between the various dominions’ representatives and the British Government. This has to be confirmed by the respective Governments, and before we can come to any decision we must confer with the Meat Board.”

Though naturally somewhat indefinite at the present stage, the Prime Minister said sufficient to confirm the general impression that some authority would be necessary, and legislation to enforce the restriction on meat exports. It has come as a shock to the Government to find all classes of meat included in the restrictive arrangement, because New Zealand’s principal line, mutton and lamb, has not exceeded the maximum which it was understood was to be followed as the result of the Ottawa Agreement. Our export of mutton and lamb in the Ottawa year, 1931-32, was 195,418 tons, whereas the Minister of Agriculture states that last year’s total was 11,349 tons less. Where the position causes real anxiety is in respect of porlk and beef.; The Ottawa year beef exports totalled 186,530 quarters, though ju the following year they increased to 235,533 quarters, strong exception being taken to this excess by the English Stock Commission, which declared that New Zealand had exceeded jts estimates by 60 per cent., while the Argentine also exported more than the agreed maximum, strict regulation therefore becoming imperative. The pork exports from New Zealand have also heavily increased since the Ottawa year, the rise being about 157,000 carcases annually. Thus, beef and pork appear to be marked down for heavy interference. It is understood that the cablegram pn which action has to be taken indicates Britain’s intention to accept from New Zealand the Ottawa year imports, plus an additional 5 per cent. This would apparently restrict the pork exports this year to a little more than half those of 1932-33, and would cause a reduction of beef by about 115,000 quarters. Another important aspect is that the arrangement now being 'dismissed is only for six months, because the British Government’s plan is to control imports jn relation to the home meat’ supplies, imposing no measure of control over the British farmers in respect of mutton, beef, and lamb, though pork is subject to control. A census of stock, and estimates of stock for slaughter are being obtained from the British farmers with the objective of settling the import quotas. A recent census was, taken in June, on which the quota figures for the six months are' based. It is not thought that the subsequent census in December, on which the next series of quotas will be fixed, will show the need tor much variation, though, if home production increases, there is no doubt the British authorities will correspondingly restrict meat imports. it is important in view of this governing factor to note the opinion. of the British Commission on Fat Stock that the percentage changes in the live stock output of Britain do not show high variations. Those of the last thirtythree years were as follow ;—Beef and veal, 2.2 per cent. ; mutton and lamb, 4.5 per cent. “ Strict regulation of the home output of the live stock industry is unnecessary,” stated the commission. “ What is required is complete and continual knowledge of production, which will permit any unusual changes in the home output to be foreseen in good time.” FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RECEIVES PROPOSALS MINISTERS RETICENT ON DETAILS * SYDNEY, July 31. (Received July 31, at 10 a.m.) The Federal Government has received from the British Government messages embodying fresh proposals for the regulation of meat imports. It is understood that these involve a quota scheme. They will bo considered by the Federal Cabinet to-day. Mr Lyons, interviewed at Canberra last night, refused to discuss the messages. The Minister of Commerce (Mr Stewart) Said: “I agree with the remarks of the Prime. Minister of New Zealand. While any proposal for the restriction of exports would seriously affect NeSv Zealand to a greater degree than Australia, ahy retarding of development, even for a temporary period, is fraught with very serious consequences. The attitude of the Commonwealth Government has been consistently to oppose restriction of exports. The imposition of a duty, however small, on Australian beef, it is considered, would cripple the industry and endanger the prospects of export.” A RETALIATORY MEASURE? HARD BLOW TO FARMERS WILL ENGLAND PAY MORE? A serious set-back is likely to be given to the meat producers of New Zealand when the exportation restrictions imposed by the British Government.are brought into operation. Men in the. stock, trade make no secret of their fears that the farmers of this country will be more severely hit in the near future than they were two years ago. Mr James Begg remarked in an interview that Britain was treating New, Zealand as the dominion had always treated her—by restricting the entry of our products.

“ Apparently this restriction is only the beginning,” said Mr Begg, who is a member of the Meat Board. “If Mr Elliot’s schemes work out as intended, the price of meat in Britain will rise. In spite of the very low price of beef for the last two years in Britain, the consumption has been declining. With vising prices it is reasonable to assume that the consumption will still further decline. This, in turn, will mean further restrictions - on imports from foreign and dominion sources. Whether these attempts will compel the people to pay higher prices may bo open to doubt, but it is apparent that this is a fixed policy of the Home Government.” While restrictions of exports would open up many awkward problems for New Zealand, said Mr Begg, this country had really little or no say in the matter, and must accept what the British Government decided. Although the dominion felt this move keenly, Britain was only treating us as we had treated her—that is, we had restricted the entry of her goods into our markets. “ It will be another severe blow to the dairy industry,” said Mr Begg, when he was asked to comment on the restriction of pork exports. “The pork industry has been expanding very rapidly, particularly in the North Island, and many dairy farmers have made plans to largely increase their output. If the expansion is checked it will be a severe blow to the dairy farmers. Nearly half a million pigs were exported last year, and this is an industry that has practically grown from nothing in the last three or four . years.” The effect on the South Island, which exported mainly mutton and lamb, depended entirely on the working of the quota, said another authority. The indications were that, in the end, the British_Government might set out the permissible exportable quantities. Certainly the North Island would insist that beef should not be heavily restricted, but the Meat Board would have to take into account the necessity of _ sending Home meat which wbmcl bring iu tlio most money for New Zealand and be of the biggest all-found •benefit. The exports of beef had been increasing, while the trade in pork from the North Island had shown tremen- , dons expansion. The effect of the quota could not bo foreseen. It might raise values . The intention of the British Government in restricting importations was to raise the local prices and to benefit the British farmers. Quite possibly the price of the quantity permitted to bo exported to England would also rise, but it was very doubtful whether tho rise would be sufficient to counteract the restricted quantity, which was expected to be about 25,000 tons. In New Zealand the quota was considered to portend a very serious effect on farmers’ operations. The quota might be only the forerunner of other restrictions now that the British Government had started. One could not tell where the restrictions would end. . The sudden restriction of importations into England presented an interesting problem. The difficulty was to see how the British farmer could breed quickly enough sufficient animals to replace the lowered quantities coming in from overseas, which had been absorbed by the demand up to the present. In v the natural order of events, some years were needed to breed sufficient stock to supply a shortage of _ 25,000 tons. Therefore it looked as if the first effect of the restrictions would be a very considerable amount of trade for Canada and the Argentine, and even Ireland, despite the tariff, for the supply of live stock into England for fattening for immediate purposes. The British Government would probably also have to face < an argument with the British people if they had to pay for dearer, meat.. The politicians and statesmen had doubtless viewed the position from all angles, but the restrictions would increase the cost of the dinner table, which, in turn, under the present circumstances at Home, would lead to industrial trouble. For generations England had perpetually harped on a “ free breakfast table,” hut the country was now faced with a “ dearer dinner table.” The Government had expressed its .intention to help the farmer, but had not stated that the restrictions would assist the country’s finances in any way. “It looks as if the quota might he a political reprisal by Britain against onr arbitrary rate of exchange,” said the commercial man. “ No, T cannot tell you where our high exchange policy has benefited anybody. We want England to buy our products, but the exchange rate prevents the people buying from England. Constantly questions are being asked as to the cost-of the exchange to the New Zealand public, hut Mr Coates has not given a satisfactory reply, probably for the simple reason that he does hot know the cost.” The likely total restriction on all exporting countries would be 60,000 to 70:000 tons of meat, stated tho ‘Star’s’ informant.