MEAT COMPETITION

Grey River Argus, 30 May 1935, Page 5

MEAT COMPETITION

N.Z. VERSUS AUSTRALIA Will Britain Take Sides ? (Aus. and N.Z. Cable Assn.) LONDON, Alay 28. To-day s meat meoling concerned mutton and lamb,, and itliere was diffi. culty in reconciling the edaims of New Zealand and Australia. AFr Elliott presided nt the conference, at which AFr Coates. Dr. R. Campbell, and Mill. I. Forde represented New Zealand, to examine the percentages. Lt was shown that of Britain’s imports from Australia and New Zealand last year, Australia supplied 31.4 per cent and A’ew Zealand 65.6 per cent.

New Zealand contended that it was not a fair basis, as Australia’s supplies included large percentage of low grade meat, her firs’t grade amounting to only 15 per cent, of the total, whereas New Zealand’s first grade percentage was 65, with the result that New Zealand’s prices were throe-halfpence above Austra'inn. New Zealand was, therefore, anxious to maintain ‘to command a higher Air Elliott expressed the opinion that the market could absorb the ag gregale of Australia and Now Zealand two peak years, |>ut their respective percentages wnnhl have to b-- 1 worked out. Britain suggested New Zealand 70.6 per coni., and A list radian 29.4 per cent, but Australia pressed for the retention of 68.6 ami 31.4 respectively. ’This would reduce New Zealand’s .shipments to the extent of 400,000 hundredweights. A number of alternative formulae were ultimately referred 'to the respective delegations, for consideraTon. New Zealand’s Case FOR 7 TO 3 PROPORTION. AN EYE TO LATER QUOTAS. (Supplied and released by New Zealand Government). WELLINGTON, May 29. The New Zealand delegation in London is still concentrating all its energies towards retaining the Dominion’s United Kingdom market for mutton and lamb, and the delegation has not yet reached an agreement with the Australian delegation, who arc seeking a greater share of the market, which j New Zealand has built up over a num-: ber of vears.

New Zealand has contended that the Ottawa year should be the basis of the future supplies of mutton and lamb on the United Kingdom market. year Australia landed 1,489,507 cwts. on the United Kingdom market, and New Zealand 3,908,054 cwts. New Zealand’s proposal was that each country should be allowed a five per cent, increase on those figures, the respective proportions for two countries then being 27 point 6 per cent, for Australia, and 72 point 4 per cent, .for New Zealand.

Australia, on the other hand, desires to depart from those Ottawa, quantities and to take as the basis the 1934 shipments, which were 1,627,885 cwts. for the Commonwealth and 3,554,511 cwts. for the Dominion, the proportions be ing 31 point 4 per cent, and 68 point 6 per cent, respectively.

New Zealand has replied that it would be unfair to take the Australian peak year and a low year for New Zealand, especially as the Ottawa formula was based on the then peak years for both countries. Furthermore, the New Zealand representatives contend that grading should be taken into consideration, as New Zealand ships first an J second grade only in mutton and lamb, Ihe proportions being: First grade, from 65 to 70 per cent.; and second grade 35 to 30 per cent. On the other hand, Australia has only 15 to 20 per. of first grade, which is at present bringing a penny farthing per lb. less than the New Zealand product, and the re mainder second and third grade. If New Zealand adopted comparable grades, her volume of ’ exports would be considerably greater, but at th? same time she would receive lower prices, and depress the market generally. The English officials suggested, as a compromise, that the two countries should base their porportions on their respective peak years, namely, 1934 for Australia, and .1932 for New Zealand. In that case, the percentage would be 29 point 4 for Australia and 70 point 6 .for New Zealand.

After further discussion, the New Zealand delegates accepted this proposal so long as the shipments were spread over a- period of agreement by both countries, and Australia, adopted a system of control and grading. It was felt that if such agreement ran for 18 months, a Meat Council would be then set up. This new organisation could investigate the market, and could recommend what quantities of the various classes of meat were to be sent by the different countries of supply.

Australia still refused to shift from her original proposal. After two further meetings, an adjournment was taken to-day, to enable the parties to investigate a .further alternative put forward by Mr AV. Elliot (British Minister of Agriculture).

An important aspect of the problem is that if there is to be an increase or a decrease in the quantities when the market will profitably absorb the extra requirements or diminutions are to be based on the respective percentages now being allocated. Thus the actual quantities are not the only question to be taken into consideration.