BUTTER RESTRICTIONS

Stratford Evening Post, Volume II, Issue 238, 9 May 1933, Page 6

BUTTER RESTRICTIONS

Reply to Mr. Coates STATEMENT BY MR. DYNES FULTON Press Association— Copyright Wellington. May 8. Replying to Mr. J. G. Coates' statement regarding butter restrictions Mr. Dynes Fulton, acting chairman of the Dairy Board, stated in an interview that it came as a great shock, as he had indicated to Mr. Coates at the recent conference with him thai the question was finished in view of th:> Ottawa agreement. The industry had - Ejected restrictions and so had Ausuv' .. notwithstanding the fact that latter would not be affected to the same extent as New Zealand. They had opposed i' on principle. In view of the decision reached and the fact that butter had risen one wondered why Mr. Coates had made a statement at this particular time. Mr. Coates was fully conversant with the position, and one would have expected he would have made the statement before the delegation left for Australia, Mr. Fulton contended that the publication of Mr. Coates' statement might be the means of further agitation by those favouring restrictions. He felt confident that the producers would just as strenuously resent interference by the Government in an industry it was obvious the Government knew nothing about.

Mr. Coates had scathingly commented on cheese quality, but the Government could have given greater assistance to the industry if Mr. Coates could forecast future restrictions. Why was he proceeding with the small farm scheme and a policy of generally increasing production?

Mr. Fulton was optimistic enough to feel that after the World Conference and world adjustment of finance had taken place improvements could be expected. The alternative to the quota system was not ruin as stated by Mr. Coates but a free market in Britain, remarked Mr. H. E. Blyde, provincial president of the Farmers' Union, in an address at Okato last night. Mr. Blyde said the trade agreement that Britain had just arranged with Denmark showed definitely that Britain wanted tariff reductions so that she could do more trade. He would seriously say that Britain was not so much concerned with the restriction of the quantity of butter going on to the English market. Actually that would only benefit the British agriculturist who would get a better price for his produce while the manufacturer and the consumer would not benefit. Reduction in tariff, however, would enable Britain to do more trade with New Zealand, enabling the British to buy more New Zealand produce, and New Zealand in "turn would be able to buy more British goods. Both would be much better off.

Mr. Blyde added that he was inclined to be suspicious of the statement made by Mr. Coates. It looked to him as though Mr. Coates thought they would not be able to do all that the Ottawa agreement required them to do in the way of the reduction of tariffs, and that as one way of placating the British Government he was prepared to agree to a quota. Mr. Blyde held that reducing the tariff was the one way that would help the farmer to reduce costs.' He did not think the British were consuming as much butter and cheese as they could, because though they were now consuming more than they had ever done they were not consuming one-third as much as the New Zealand consumer did. He thought they could go a long way yet before it could be said that there was over-production. An undeveloped country like New Zealand should be the last in the world to agree to restriction of exports if there were any other possible way out. It would help Britain far more for New Zealand to reduce the tariff than to reduce the quota. He made it clear that in taking up an „ attitude opposing the quota he did not wish to antagonise Britain. On the other hand, by reducing the tariff the farmers felt they would be offering Britain something better.