MEAT QUOTA QUESTION

Northern Advocate, 28 December 1934, Page 6

MEAT QUOTA QUESTION

ATTITUDE OF AUSTRALIA j COMMENT BY DEPUTY PREMIER » OPPOSITION JUSTIFIED [Per Press Association. — Copyright.l BLENHEIM. This Day. A comment upon Australia’s attitude toward a quota on meat exports to Great Britain was made by Mr. M. F. Bruxner, Deputy Premier of New South Wales, yesterday. Mr. Bruxner expressed the strongest opposition to quantitative restrictions, and indicated that Australia was opposing the principle on sti'ong 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 in England at a cheaper cost,” he explained. “Britain has always stated that the reason the Argentine secured the trade was because chilled meat was better than frozen. We then set to work and have battled, fought and experimented until we have found we can put chilled meat | on the London market. We have millions of acres of cattle country to de- } velop, and if we cannot export we are j going to be set back in our normal I advancement.”

Mr. Bruxner said that so far Australia could not export very large quantities of chilled meat, owing to the lack of equipment, but the trade was capable of steady expansion, and all the country wanted was the opportunity to produce and take her chance on the Home market, unrestricted except by fair competition. Australia had loans to repay in Britain and did not want to default, but the only way to pay was in kind. After all, the Argentine had fewer claims on Britain’s consideration than had Australia and New Zealand, which had given their sons by the thousands in the Great War.

The attitude of the Commonwealth was that the right of unrestricted trade on the Home market was worth fighting for, and he believed it would be worth while to hang on and decline to accept the quota.