BRITISH CRITICS

Grey River Argus, 20 October 1934, Page 5

BRITISH CRITICS

N.Z. DAIRY CLAIMS No Special Preference (Aus. & N.Z. Cable Assn.) (Received October IS at 7.30 p.m.) LONDON, October 19. A reference made to Australian dumping i n the reps rt of the New Zealand dairy industry Commission is attracting considerable attention. The “Times” expresses the opinion that no exception can be taken to the Commission’s demand for the recognition of a connection between the paymenjt debt charges a.nd the export of New Zealand produce. Tt says: “If New Zealand is to pay her debts, she must have a corresponding favourable balance in her visible trade with her creditor. ’ ’

The “Times” adds: “There wil’ be loss general agreement wi|th the other main contention of the Commission. It contends that Now Zealand lias an equitable claim for special preference, not only- over foreign countries, hut over the other Dominions both on account of tier low tariff on her imports from Britain, and because she does not dump her produce on the British market with tho help of subsidies. Hitherto. no claim of Phis kind has been advanced bv anv Dominion, owing to there being a general feeling that it would b.e invidious fop the British Government to discriminate between different parts of /the oversea Empire.” Cry of Dumping TURNED AGAINST N.Z. A FOOLISH COMMISSION ARGUMENT. (Received October 19 at 9 p.m.) LONDON. October 19. The “Morning Post,” referring to the passage alleging dumping by Austhe New Zealand Dairy Commission tralia of dairy produce in Britain, in report, says: “This statement hardly does justice to the enormous increase in the New Zealand supplies of dairy produce put into the British market in recent years. Britain’s imports of Now Zealand butter during the first nine months of this year, for *the first time in history, actually exceeded the imports from Denmark, so that New Zealand became our largest single supplier. Tt is true that Britain is buying 50 per cent, more butter in 1934 than she was buying in 1929. Steps might, perhaps, have been taken to secure New Zealand a larger share of the trade than she has had. Nevertheless, Now Zealand has been doing very well on the British market. Unfortunately, we have entered into engagements that are practically binding us to grant to the foreigner a proportionate share in the expansion of our market. Thereby we are limiting New Zealand’s opportunity. That is a legitimate source of grievance. It ought to be rectified as soon as the present treaties expire. MeanNew Zealand’s representatives, seek while, we ought, in consultation with means to assist her from her serious crisis, to which her Commission draws attention. ”