NASH-COATES TILT

Evening Star, Issue 23208, 6 March 1939, Page 12

NASH-COATES TILT

THE MEAT QUOTAS REPLY AND COUNTER [Special to the ‘ Star.’] AUCKLAND. March 6. “ As understood in the language of fishermen, 1 have at least been successful in securing an early rise,” said the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates, in commentin'’' on the reply made by the Minister of°Marketing (the Hon. W. Nash) to his statement about meat restrictions, “ But in perusing Mr Nash’s statement, it appears that Mr Nash is arguing on a basis of shouting: ‘Gam, you’re, another!’ It is well known that T caused the depression.” Mr Coates said, “ but now Mr Nash wishes lo hail me as the inventor of quotas. Let Mr Nash or anyone else road the pamphlet referred" to. and try to make himself believe that 1 introduced quotas. “ T think T have made it clear already that between 1931 and 1935 we had ‘to face difficulties in the way_ of meat restriction proposals just as difficult as anything that Mr Nash has encountered, but I repeat that during that period our exports of mutton and lamb to the United Kingdom were never restricted. We worked to allocations, certainly, hub they were always roomy enough to give us hope of expansion. , , . „ “ As for the mutton and lamb allocation, in the first full year following the Ottawa Conference, it was definitely 4,000,000 cwt. I have stated that that arrangement was subsequently varied, but that figure was always considered in subsequent negotiations. Mr Nash has now submitted tamely to a reduction, mandatorily made, of 500,000 cwt. “ Tn all the quota discussions with which I was personally concerned the case of the New Zealand Government was based on regulation, and not restriction. Tt must be recognised that the regulation of all meat supplies is necessary to maintain the position of mutton "and lamb, in whoich we have such a dominant interest. “ The plain fact of the matter, Mr Coates added, “ is that Mr Nash has lost the expanding share of the British market, for which we struggled so hard. Apparently he lias been so busy with his plans for social security and import restrictions that he has not considered the meat position to be sufficiently important for a strong effort on bis part. That is the only inference that can be drawn from the facts as they are at present known. Mr Nash’s speeches, when he was in opposition, concerning the Ottawa and London discussions, make interesting reading to-day. Mr Nash cannot shelter behind his officials, nor can he hide behind the Meat Board. The people expect him to explain truthfully what has happened since he took office ,in all matters affecting the meat export trade. “ It is encouraging to think that one has at least succeeded in rousing Mr Nash from his long silence,” concluded Mr Coates. “ All we can do now is to wait for him to give us a detailed account of the manner in which he fought the restrictions—or accepted them—and full information about the steps which the Government proposes to, take to deliver the meat trade from its present difficulties.” DISASTROUS FORMER MEASURES [Per United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, March 6. In the course of a reply to Mr Coates re the meat quotas, Mr Nash says the Government has pressed to the full New Zealand’s claims for a favourable market in the United Kingdom. Without pretending that our problems had all been solved,' or, for that ■matter, ever will be completely in any final sense, we had a good measure of success. No restriction or reduction had ever been imposed on killing, production. or export. This year, despite the United Kingdom Government’s decision to reduce Empire mutton and lamb imports, the Government and the Meat Board had been able in a full agreement to promise and announce that there would be no restriction here. That was not to suggest that the Government would slacken its efforts to ensure an expanding market for New Zealand produce. “We do not want to harp undulv on the past; the present and the' future are more our concern; but when Mr Coates boasts he in all his quoted discussions his case was for regulation, not restriction, has he altogether forgotten the order he a.nd the Government made in 1934, prohibiting absolutely certain classes of beef and veal exports. Even if he has, I think the fanners have not forgotten the bearing of this on their returns on bobby calves, for instance. So much for Mr Coates’s ‘ no restriction ’ inaccuracies. The task of the Labour Government is to avoid these disastrous measures of previous Governments. We have our difficulties, and are well aware that we have our shortcomings. Yet we need not fear comparison with - those who went before, not even with Mr Coates.” *