MEAT MARKETING

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 21 February 1935, Page 7

MEAT MARKETING

LEVY INSTEAD OF QUOTA BRITISH GOVERNMENT’S POLICY (United Preßß ABHoeiation—By Electric Telegraph—Copyright) (Received 21st February, 9.40 a.m.) LONDON, 20th February. Australia’s difficulty in reconciling Mr Elliot’s statement in the House of Commons on Monday with the agreement in principle to which the Commonwealth subscribed regarding meat marketing without restriction of Australia’s exports may best be explained by emphasising that Mr Elliot has not retreated from the viewpoint that restriction is necessary by substituting a levy for a quota. He makes it clear that while Britain does not relish the task of undertaking the orderly marketing of produce from the ends of the earth, he remains convinced that meat exporters, particularly in Australia, will find from bitter experience that they must themselves arrange the regulation of supplies in order to prevent a further fall in beef prices. Mr Elliot’s explanation oil Monday amounts to a change in practice rather than principle, for Britain’s administrative task is simplified by the introduction of the levy, while throwing upon the dominions the responsibility of taking the consequences for poor prices if overloading of the market persists. COMMENT BY “THE TIMES**! (Received 21st February, 11.20 a.m.) LONDON, 20th February. “The Times’’ says: “Not only the meat negotiations but all trade discussions with the dominions would be eased if the British Government could define, however roughly, the place of the agricultural industries in the economic system of Britain, and if the dominion Governments could be equally clear about the development they desire for their secondary industries.” AWAITING OFFICIAL STATEMENT MELBOURNE, 20th February. Dr. Earle Page (Minister of Commerce) declined to comment on the statement jof the Rt. Hon. Walter Elliot (British Minister of Agriculture), stating he will await an official statement from the British Government. (Received 21st February, 10.45 a.m.) MELBOURNE, This Day. Dr. Earle Page, referring to Mr Elliot’s statement says: “There is no reason to qualify in any way the official statement made by me on Tuesday. This statement was based on the Commonwealth’s reply to proposals made by the British Government.” (Received 21st February, 11.35 a.m.) LONDON, 20th February. The Dominions Office lias received Canberra’s reply in connection with Dr Page’s statement regarding the British meat proposals. Authoritative quarters decline to comment pending an examination, but a Government statement is imminent and it is hoped that this will clear up the confusion. In the House of Commons, Mr Walter Elliot intimated that the policy of quantitative regulation, otherwise quotas would be abandoned and that a levy or duty on imported meat was now the Government’s policy. BRITAIN’SPROPOSALS THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE TO DRASTIC CURTAILMENT (Received 21st February, 10.45 a.m.) CANBERRA, This Day. It is learned that the principles for agreement between the British and Australian Governments on the subject of meat which were disclosed by Dr. Earle Page on Tuesday were presented to the Australian Government in cable messages from the British Government. as definitely the only alternative to the drastic quantitative curtailment of meat imports to Britain. •