The Gisborne Herald IN WHICH IS INCORPORATED "THE TIMES." GISBORNE, TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 1949 N.Z. BUTTER EXPORTS TO NORTH AMERICA

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXVI, Issue 22889, 8 March 1949, Page 4

The Gisborne Herald IN WHICH IS INCORPORATED "THE TIMES." GISBORNE, TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 1949 N.Z. BUTTER EXPORTS TO NORTH AMERICA

r JpIE statement made by the president of Federated Farmers, Mr. AY N. Perry, that New Zealand is permitted to send a small percentage of butter to former customers in order to keep her markets alive should be carefully noted by people who are inclined to quibble over the idea of consigning a little butter to Canada and the United States. AVhen contributions to the butter rationing controversy were being made late last year three schools of thought emerged. The first .strenuously opposed any increase in the ration; the second called for the end of all rationing; and the third advocated an increase in the ration to eight ounces a week. A large number of people, moreover, objected strongly to any procedure which diverted even the most minute quantities of butter from Britain.

This sentiment in favour of “all for Britain” is admirable, but the United Kingdom authorities themselves have agreed that New Zealand must not cut off completely all channels of trade with other countries. One popular suggestion from public opinion was that New Zealand could increase its ration at the expense, not of her exports to Britain, but of the small quantities that are reserved, by this agreement with the United Kingdom, for export to countries with which the Dominion wishes to maintain skeleton trade connections or in which it is possible and desirable to earn hard currencv.

1 No one is better qualified to judge the practicability of this suggestion than the Dairy Products Marketing Commission, whose chairman, Mr. AA 7 . Marshal], once recorded its views as follows: “The commission is strongly of the opinion that the three per cent of our exportable surplus, reserved after consultation with the United Kingdom Ministry of Food for “free” sale anywhere, is an irreducible minimum for that purpose, and that any increased consumption in New Zealand could, therefore, only reduce the amount available for Britain. In other words, 97 per cent of all the butter saved by rationing in New Zealand goes to the United Kingdom. All things considered, it would seem that the position at the moment is quite well balanced and satisfactory to most parties. The British Ministry of Food has expressed high appreciation of the additional quantities that rationing in New Zealand has made available for it and has emphasised the great difficulty it would have in maintaining its people’s meagre ration if rationing were abolished in New Zealand and Australia. And, acceptable though an extra butter ration might be in some New Zealand households, it cannot be said that any person in this country is suffering undue hardship. At the same time it is wise that markets other than that in Britain should be kept alive by the diversion of the “irreducible minimum.”