MEAT NEGOTIATIONS

Evening Star, Issue 21960, 21 February 1935, Page 9

MEAT NEGOTIATIONS

QUESTION OF EXPORT RESTRICTIONS RESPONSIBILITY ON SUPPLIERS Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright LONDON, February 20. (Received February 21, at 10.5 a.m.) Australia’s difficulty in reconciling Mr Elliot's statement in the House of Commons on Monday with agreement in principle to which the Commonwealth subscribed regarding meat marketing without restriction of Australia’s exports, may best be explained by emphasising that Mr Elliot has not retreated from the viewpoint that restriction is necessary. By substituting a levy for a quota he makes it clear that while Britain does not relish the task of undertaking the orderly marketing of produce from the ends of the earth, lie remains convinced that meat exporters, particularly in Australia, will find from bitter experience that they must themselves arrange regulation of supplies in order to prevent a further fall in beef prices. Mr Elliot’s explanation on Monday amounts to a change in practice rather than in principle, for Britain’s administrative task will be simplified by the introduction of a levy while throwing upon the dominions the responsibility of taking the consequences of poor prices if overloading of the market persists. AUSTRALIA’S ATTITUDE MELBOURNE, February 20. Dr Earle Page declined to comment on Mr Elliot’s statement, stating that he will await an official statement from the Government. [Mr Eliot, in a statement to the ‘ Sim-Herald ’ service, _ said: “How could we give the dominions complete freedom of meat with a |d per lb levy against Id foreign and Kimultaneosuly restrict foreign exports, J STATEMENT BY DR PAGE MELBOURNE, February 21. (Received February 21, at 11 a.m.) Dr Earle Page, referring to Mr Elliot’s statement, says: “ There is no reason to qualify in any way the official statement made by me on Tuesday. This statement was based on the Commonwealth reply to the proposals made by the British Government.” THE BRITISH PROPOSALS PRESENTED AS ONLY ALTERNATIVE. CANBERRA, February 21. (Received February 21, at 11.5 a.m.) It is learned that the principles for an agreement between the British and Australian Governments on the subject of meat, which were disclosed by Dr Earl© Page on Tuesday, were presented to the Australian Government in cable messages from the British Government as definitely the only alternative to drastic quantitative curtailment of meat imports to Britain. SUGGESTION BY 1 THE TIMES ’ ' LONDON, February 20. ‘ The Times 1 says: “ Not only meat negotiations, but all trade discussions with the dominions, would be eased if the British Government could define, however roughly, the place of agricultural industries in the economic system of Britain, and if the dominion Governments could be equally clear about the development they desire for their secondary industries.” CANBERRA’S REPLY BRITISH STATEMENT IMMINENT. LONDON, February 20. (Received February 21, at noon.) The Dominions Office has received Canberra’s reply in connection with Dr Earle Page’s statement regarding the British meat proposals. Authoritative quarters decline to comment, pending an examination, but a Government statement is imminent, and it is hoped that this will clear up the confusion.