AUSTRALIAN FARMERS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20075, 16 April 1927, Page 23

AUSTRALIAN FARMERS.

THE TARIFF WEAPON. FINDING INCREASED FAVOUR. NEW ZEALAND BUTTER DUTY. (From Oue Own Coeeespondentj SYDNEY, April 7. There baa been much evidence during the last few weeks that tho Australian primary producer is looking more towards the tariff to protect himself against outside competition. This has been shown by representatives of several leading primary industries. Hitherto, the farmers and graziers have been bitterly opposed to the protective tariff, arguing that although the secondary industries have been pampered by the duties, the heaviest burden has always fallen on the primary producer, who, because his goods must be in competition with those of other parte of the world, cannot pass on increased costs of production, caused by dearer machinery and other material used by him. J Perhaps the boldest suggestion made by a primary producing body was that of the Graziers’ Association. At its annual conference it agreed to a motion that the Federal Government should impose duties of a retaliatory nature on those countries whoso trade balances were against Australia, Speakers admitted that the motion was aimed at the United States, which, while having a trade balance of £30,000,000 per annum in its favour imposed such a high duty on Australian wools that only the very finest quality could be purchased profitably by American buyers. Tobacco growers of this Stats are also urging the Federal Government to decrease the present excise duty, increase tho tariff duty, and pay a bounty on locally-produced leaf. But probably ot most interest to New Zealand is the campaign at present being waged by Australian dairy farmers to have the duty on butter increased from 2d per lb to fid. So far, they have been refused the increase. Under the Patenson stabilisation scheme local consumers are taxed 3d per lb to cover losses on butter exported to London, but this additional 3d allowed Now Zealand makers to exploit the Sidney and Melbourne markets profitably. Considerable quantities were imported for a short period and forced producers here to lower their prices. Commenting (he demand for increased protection on letter that arose from this, the Melbourne A’gus says: “Inquiry discloses that the actual value of butter imported into Australia from New Zealand during 1925-25 vas £245,940, which contrasts with £193 for the preceding term, and £189,968 for 1923-24. That the trade is essentially seasonal is revealed by the foregoing fluctuations. In any event the man n the land should realise that Australia is : n a better position in regard to reciprocal trade than is New Zealand, as its exports to New Zealand far exceed the imports from that country. Products of the faim form the larger proportion of the commodities sent by Ar .rah'a to Now Zealand. . . To exi-i 'de Dominion butter means attacking 1 .e base of a very profitable business a. ancement for Australia Action of the kind may have a farreaching effect. Sc no of the chief advocates of a prohibitive duty on butter are anxious to promote co-operation with New Zealand in marketing products ebroad. How can representations in that irection have < favourable reception if trade is not at all reciprocal in a product like Putter? To prevent its admittance here will be to force its sale abroad, and with prico-cut-ting such competition micht onsilv entail a heavier loss to Australian dairy farmers than if they were content to accept the existing duty on butter.”