FREIGHT ON PRODUCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19386, 22 July 1926, Page 7

FREIGHT ON PRODUCE.

AN AUSTRALIAN REDUCTION. SAVING TO THE SHIPPERS. OVER £500,000 A YEAR. [from our own correspondent.] SYDNEY. July 15. The distance of Australia, as of Now Zealand, from the most attractive markets of the world makes those two countries dependent largely for their prosperity upon the cost of transport of goods, mainly primary produce. Consequently freight rates for cargo como prominently into the picture when shippers are taking into consideration the prospects of the seasons. It came as a pleasant surprss. for Australian shippers, therefore, to read on Monday last that the Commonwealth Government Line had decided to reduce rates from Australia to British ana Continental ports on practically all primary produce. The reduction was as unexpected as it was pleasant, and the pleasure was increased by the news that all the so-called conference or 'combine lines were making similar reduction';.

There must be some secret history somewhere behind these decreases of rates. For yean after its establishment the Commonwealth Lino played a lone hand in the matter of rates, and there ensued a freight war from which the primary producers were the main beneficiaries. Then, with freight unpayable, the Government Sine entered into the conference, and rates became uniform.

Theories as to Cause. The question if now being asked, Who were the breakaways ? By its prior announcement, the Commonwealth Line takes the credit in Australia, but certain men who profess to know, believe that the Commonwealth Line merely forestallpd the Conference Lines, which had determined upoi a surprise announcement without first consulting the Commonwealth Shipping Board. If that is so, someone must have let the cat out of the bag, and Australian taxpayers are praising the line they havo so frequently condemned.

Shippers care not who made the first move. Their only concern is that freights are down, and that means that Australian produce ~ can compete more equitably with countries noarer the important markets. The reductions range up to 13 per cent. Meat, wool, skins and hides al! come down one-eighth of a penny per lb., apples and oranges by 6d per case, and butter and - lard by a similar amount. It is just here that New Zealand must become interested. Thus Mr. 0. E. D. Moarcs, general manager of the Producers' Distributin. Society, who has long been associated with Australia's export of dairy produce, said that the freight reductions on butter, amounting to £1 per ton, would place the Australian product on an equality with New Zealand butter in the matter of freights. Tho Prime Minister, Mr. Bruce, quoted official statistics to show that tho saving to Australia in one year would be £522,000, made ui of wool £230,000, meat £143,000, butter and cheese £52,000, apples £66,000 and hides, sheepskins and furred skins £31,000.

New Zealand Meat Bates. Officials, of the Australian Meat Council also express satisfaction with tho reduction, one remarking: "New Zealand meat exporters ha\o enjoyed preferential rates for some time. Tho reduction will remove something of the disadvantage at which Australian exporters have thua been placed. Prices for Australian mutton in London have been so low that the decrease ot one-eighth of a penny per lb. in freight will mean much to gome Australian sheep farmers,"