Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. SATURDAY, JANUARY, 14th., 1928. BUTTER AMENITIES

Greymouth Evening Star, 14 January 1928, Page 6

Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. SATURDAY, JANUARY, 14th., 1928. BUTTER AMENITIES

AUSTRALIAN farmers are apparently feeling very sorry for themselves, and are endeavouring to make their New Zealand colleagues as a scapegoat for Australian rural misfortunes. A harrowing story was unfolded by Dr. Page, Federal Treasurer, and leader of the Country Party, at a meeting of N.S.Wales dairymen, with whose laments he was sympathising. He did nothing so unpopular with his audience as to suggest that most of the fault of. their economic ills could be traced to their own methods, or to Australian conditions. He took the easier path, and hinted that New Zealand exports of butter were mainly responsible. A short time ago, the Federal Parliament approved of new tariff duties including a large increase on New Zealand dairy produce, and wanted the new penalty to take effect immediately. However, the tariff pact between Australia and the Dominion, provides that, no variation can be made, without mutual consent, before six months’ notice has been given, and in this instance. New Zealand was not willing to waive this interval. This decision greatly annoyed N.S.W. dairymen, who were hoping* to close the door on N.Z. butter imports at once. Why an agreement, which, in the main, is to the advantage of the Commonwealth should be revised as and when the Australians desire, is difficult to understand.

Australia proposes to send a delegate to Wellington to endeavour to get a concession from New Zealand, and to go into the question of tariff reciprocity, generally. Such a visitor will be received courteously, and efforts made to devise an agreement regarding mutual customs duties, but with the best will in the world, it is impossible to frame a pact that can never, under any circumstances, work adversely to one or other of the parties. What Australia may lose on butter, she gains on, say, potaioes, and if an outcry is to be made whenever the Australian farmers are not getting all the “cream ” of an agreement, it would be folly for this country to per-severe-in the task of co-operating with her larger neighbour, and occasional rival. Tariffs invariably lead Io causes .for recrimination, and Australia and New Zealand cannot escape this common lot. Another grievance of the Australian farmer was voiced by the sheep-breeders, who revealed a wicked conspiracy on the part of New Zealand dealers, to unload on the guileless Commonwealth all the scrub ranis not wanted in the

Dominion. We know of no law

compelling Australian farmers to buy these inferior animals, and if a market exists for them, it would seem that the quality of the rams cannot be quite so bad as described. None can pretend that where sheep-breeding is concerned, the Australians know little or nothing, and it is not a case of deceiving the innocent. Some plain speaking should be exchanged when the Australian tariff delegate arrives, and he should be asked to produce stronger proofs of New Zealand sharp-dealing than the partisan complainings of Australian farmers.

It is a tribute to New Zealand produce, especially its butter, that both Australia and Canada are making attempts to keep it from competing with their own products. Exported butter always has handicaps to overcome, by way of freight, insurance, duties, and other expenses, the home-made article escapes, and if despite these, New Zealand butter can find a tooreacly market in Canada and Australia, it seems clear that its superiority makes it preferred by Canadians and Australians. The dairymen of those lands should adopt the obviously-best course, of ceasing their lamentations, and use their time better in improving their own products.