MEAT QUOTA

Grey River Argus, 29 December 1934, Page 8

MEAT QUOTA

AUSTRALIA’S OBJECTION

|THE PRINCIPLE OPPOSED ON PRACTICAL GROUNDS.

(Per Press Association.)

BLENHEIM, December 27.

Invited to comment upon Australia’s attitude towards the quota on meat exports to Great Britain, LieutColonel M. F. Bruxner. Deputy-Pre micr of New South Wales, expressed the strongest opposition to quantitative restrictions and indicated that Australia was opposing the princip e on strong practical grounds. ‘‘For years’ we have been handicapped in our competition, with the Argentine in that we have to send frozen meat while they can land chilled meat iu England a t a cheaper cost,” he explained. “Great Britain has always stated that the reason the Argentine got the trade was because chilled meat was better than frozen. We then set to work and

have battled and experimented until we have found we can put chilled meat on the London market. We have millions of acres- of cattle country to develop and, if we cannot ex port, we are going to be set back in our normal advancement.’'’ Australia could not export large quantities of chilled meat so far. because of lack of equipment, but the trade was capable of steady expansion, and the country wanted the opportunity to produce and take her chance on the Home market, unrestricted except by fair competition.

Australia had loans to repay in Great Britain and did not want to default, but the only way to pay was in kind. Argentine had fewer claims on Great Britain than Australia and New Zealand which, had given their sons by the thousand in the Great War. The attitude of the Commonwealth was that the right of unrestricted trade in the Home market wa& worth fighting for, and he believed it would be worth while to hang on and decline to accept the quota.