DAIRY INDUSTRY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22398, 20 October 1934, Page 13

DAIRY INDUSTRY

MEETING OF CONTROL BOARD CONSIDERATION OF REPORT TWO MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS OPPOSED (Peb United Press Association) WELLINGTON, October 19. At a meeting of the Dairy Produce Board to-day consideration was given to the report which has just been brought down by the Dairy Industry Commission. The board decided to confine consideration to two of the main issues—the method of election of the new hoard and the constitution of the Council of Production and Trade. Members were unanimous in expressing the opinion that in the meantime this was as far as the board should go, as they had not had sufficient time to study the many detailed recommendations of the report. Most of the producer members of the board expressed the opinion very definitely that neither the constitution of the new board nor the commission’s recommendation of absolute control for the Council of Production and Trade would commend itself to the dairy industry, and there was a general desire on the part of the board that further time should be allowed for consideration of the whole report. The following motion was carried with regard to the constitution of the new board:—“That the Dairy Board considers that the constitution of the new Dairy Board, as submitted by the report of the Dairy Commission, is unsatisfactory and would not be acceptable to the industry.” The following motion with regard to the Council of Production and Trade was also carried:—“That the board expresses the opinion that the Council of Production and Trade submitted by the report of the Dairy Commission is altogether unacceptable as it entirely over-rides the powers of the Dairy Board.”

THE COMMISSION’S REPORT REFERENCE TO DUMPING (United Press Association.) (By Electric Telegraph—Copyright.) LONDON, October 19. (Received Oct. 19, at 9 p.m.) The reference to Australian dumping In the report of the New Zealand Dairy Industry Commission is attracting considerable attention. ' The Times espressos the opinion that no exception can be taken to the commission’s demand for recognition of the connection between the payment of debt charges and the export of New Zealand produce. “If New Zealand is to pay her debts she must have -a corresponding favourable balance in visible trade with her creditor. There will bo less general agreement with the other main contention. The commission contends that New Zealand has an equitable claim for special preference, not only over foreign countries but over other dominions, both on account of her low tariff on imports from Britain and because she does not dump produce on the British market with the help of subsidies. Hitherto no claim of this kind has been advanced by any dominion owing to the general feeling that it would be invidious for the British Government to discriminate between different parts of the overseas Empire.’’ MORNING POST COMMENT LONDON. October 19. (Received Oct. 19, at 10.35 p.m.) The Morning Post, referring to the dumping passage in the New Zealaud Dairy Commission report, says: “The statement hardly does justice to the enormous increase in New Zealand supplies to the British market during rec-mt years. Her imports of butter for the first nine months of the year for the first time in history actually exceeded the imports from Denmark, so New Zealand became our largest single supplier. It is true that Britain is buying 50 oer cent, more butter in 1934 than in 1929, and steps might perhaps have been taken to secure her a larger share than *he had. Nevertheless, New Zealand has been doing very well in the British market. Unfortunately we entered engagements practically binding us to grant a foreigner a proportionate share in the expansion of the market, thereby limiting New Zealand’s opportunity. That is a legitimate source of grievance and ought to be rectified as soon as the treaties expire. Meanwhile, we ough:, in consultation with her representatives, to seek means to assist her from the serious crisis to which the commission draws attention.”