QUOTAS ON MEAT

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18465, 2 August 1934, Page 4

QUOTAS ON MEAT

POSITION MORE SERIOUS GISBORNE PROTESTS REVIEW BY SHEEPOWNEES : The meat quotas question is assuming a much more serious aspect Nines the first ■ intimation of export restrictions on beef, and farmers of the district fear that the restrictions might be extended to all classes of meat.

The ' Sheepowners’ Federation in Gisborne has been active. Telegrams of protest were sent to Ministers and to members of Parliament when the embargo was first applied, and these were followed by a letter setting out reasons against the restriction in regard to beef. 'A. meeting of the sheepowners’ executive and other members interested will be held on Saturday, August 11, when the question will be discussed in the light of more recent developments. It is hoped to back a further protest with some constructive suggestions as to methods of meeting the difficulties that may arise if the British authorities persist in their restrictive, policy, and it is believed that more def» nite and more far-reaching proposals? than already made will be put forward at the meeting with a view to assisting the Meat Board and the Government in the ivery'difficult task that lies before them. OTTAWA AGREEMENT

The letter-sent'to the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates by Mr. A. J. Stock, secretary of the Sheepowners’ Union, -was as follows: “Further to our telegram we beg respectively to submit the following points for your consideration.

“L The quota of 20,000 t.ons specified in the Ottawa agreement was based upon the 1932 export figures. Though this amount was greater than the preceding few years it was very much less than the normal output prior to the slump, and could be considered a reasonable expectation under normal conditions.

‘ ‘ 2. The quantity bears a relation of 1 in 26 to the total imports into the United Kingdom and' a ratio of 1 in 69 to the total beef consumed. A fluctuation of even 50 per cent, in either direction could have no appreciable effect upon values of homegrown beef. ‘‘ 3. The value of beef cattle locallv

is -largely controlled by the export value and that of store cattle by the local value of beef. The sudden and unexpected embargo on export renders frozen beef unsaleable and immediately creates a glut in the local supply, resulting in heavy capital loss to all owners of cattle.

'* 4. Unless some profit can be gained from the raising of cattle farmers must be forced to reduce their numbers. The 'quality .of the pastures on the hill country of the North Island depends upon the maintenance of large numbers of cattle. The restrictions, therefore, are likely VfaJ have an adverse effect upon the pas7?v Hires and upon the quality of our mutton and lamb production. LOADED DICE

“5. The amount of beef- exported bears sucli a small relation to the amount consumed in New Zealand that a slight rise in value in England; even if it did occur, would be no compensation for the loss incurred as described in paragraph 3. ‘‘6. The uncertainty created by lack of foreknowledge and the detrimental effect of the enforced carry-over render cattle-raising something in the nature of a gamble—the dice being loaded against the fanner.

“ 7. We strongly recommend the appointment of a first-class man whose separate business it should be to investigate the export possibilities- with regard to meat.

“We recognise that the unfortunate recurrence of this embargo is merely the outcome of the agreement entered* into in 1932. but we feel that if the considerations 1 and 2 were impressed upon the Home authorities and an alteration requested in terms of article 13 of the Ottawa agreement they would be prepared, if they are determined to enforce the quota, to increase the quantity to something more in keeping with the requirements of the case. We suggest the average of the five pre-slump years, 1923-1928.

“We fully appreciate the difficulty and delicacy of the negotiations which it has fallen to the Government to conduct, and the fact that any decision rests with the British Government, but we venture to urge the necessity of an early and definite conclusion and, above ail, that due warning should be provided. The sudden and unexpected declarations of an embargo placed many in an impossible position, whereas with reasonable notice both the farmers and the buyers would have some chance to accommodate themselveS to the conditions. LEVY OR RESTRICTION?

“It is far from our intention to criticise the Government’! actions in this matter, and we realise that the points we have mentioned, and many others, \ have been the subject of careful con- M‘ sideration, but the subject is of such - outstanding importance in our district that we feel it our duty to reiterate our grounds for protest and to makp the suggestions we have in the hope that they may relieve the position. _ “It would appear that there is ! likely to be a difference of opinion in England as to the merits of a levy on meat against quantitative restriction, and that, the Dominion may be asked for an opinion. In this connection we consider that of the two evils the former is the w.orst.

“I'ijl the ease of a levy the price would be raised to the English consumer while the farmer would be receiving a bonus- on production from the outsider. In short, no one in England would suffer, and the position would be likely to persist indefinitely. A quota, on the other hand, must raise prices against the consumer and these prices may easily become excessive. causing dissatisfaction in England and the abandonment of the pidiev or its modification in favor of the Dominions. Quantitative restriction, though it forces us to modify our farming methods, carries the. compensation, of higher values so that it is doubtful if the national income Would Suffer while wo should share with Home' producers the protection against excessive supplies from foreign markets. The levy would mean a certain loss to us of over £1,000,000 per annum on the basis of the id. per lb. suggested. ’ ’