A WRONG IMPRESSION

Taranaki Daily News, 2 April 1934, Page 15

A WRONG IMPRESSION

butter in the east new ZEALAND’S OPPORTUNITY. STATEMENTS REFUTED.

Writes Mr. Alex S. Tetzner, of Patumahoe, to the editor of the Taranaki Daily News:— Mr. W. J. Polson, M.P., whose open letter commenting on the Dairy S.O.S. Conference I have just read, helps materially and in convincing style to place the situation before us, as the Control Boards see it. They told us many times that the trade with the Far East is “an impracticable alternative,” and that the prospects for butter “are disappointing.” Mr. Goodfellow went on to say in Auckland that there are no alternative markets in the East where we can sell butter. And he added that the development of markets “in the Orient” would not be achieved in the present generation. Mr. D. Fulton faithfully, repeated that it would be many years before consumption would increase in the East to any great extent. “It would appear,” said he, “that this part of the world had. been neglected.” This is not so. And he disclosed that from July 1, 1931, to May 31, 1933 (23 months) shipments of 8116 boxes had been made to the East. Mr. Polson now states that the total butter imported into the "Orient” is only 6175 tons. Let us see what our statistics are saying, New Zealand and Australian exports to the Fax- East being given for comparison:— N.Z. Australian. ■ ■ Butter Butter exports. exports. Tons. Tons. 1930- 661 4674 1931- 323 5787 1932- 279 5962

The total butter imports into China, India, Burma, Ceylon, Malaya, East Indies, Japan, and Philippines in 1932-33 from New Zealand and Australia alone reveal already 6241 tons (and not 6175 tons) as total imports of butter into the East from these two countries only. But the imports of butter from countries other than Australia and New Zealand are far in excess of this figure. Apparently, 6175 tons of butter (as the limit of Eastern consumption) is nothing but a misunderstanding. I hope Mr. Polson will gladly correct the impression created by demanding more reliable information and ascertaining the exact amount of butter actually consumed by the 900 millions inhabitants in the'Far East in 1933. As it stands to-day we can, unfortunately, use only our own statistics, showing how much we found it convenient to ship to the East, but we do not know how much they require. The existing reasoning appears therefore to be something as follows: Because we are sending 279 tons of butter per year the market cannot consume more than 279 tons, and the prospects are disappointing.

DISTRESSING FACT. The figures reveal a most distressing fact. While Australia is increasing her shipments of butter, we are retreating, deliberately and shamelessly, at an alarming pace. Australia is most concerned with her main exports to the Rast. Wheat, flour, wool, tallow, etc., exports expand tremendously (£19,000,000 in 1931, £21,000,000 in 1932, £22,500,000 in 1933). And yet Australia does not neglect butter, which is a sort of a side-line for her, making some £600,000 per year. But New Zealand, having no wheat and flour, only butter as her mainstay, does not care at all: let Australia collar' the Far East, Britain is our only market, with 92 per cent, of butter going Home we can afford to be beaten in the Far East. But can we? We have such a small local consumption and such a big problem and stock in Britain that we must secure external markets. ( To exploit them we must consider trade at strategic points, study and investigate, and recommendations thereon must be made. There is nobody, as yet, in New Zealand who could tell us the actual position. The Dairy Board is guilty of issuing so called weekly “reports," telling nothing that we do not know already, and of secreting information about prices and markets in the East and elsewhere. As Mr. D. H. Morrison writes ,in his open letter, commenting on the statement of Mr. T. Brash of the board that New Zealand cannot possibly extend sales of dairy produce in the East, “that is definitely far from true. Mr. Brash has obtained information from agent-S as he states. I can give my opinion sue on the spot and as one who is trauhig solely in New Zealand * ods. In regard to dairy produce, such as butter, the difference in freights is not so great that New Zealand cannot compete with Australia. New Zealand products have a very good name here, and the demand is increasing greatly.” (Seremban, F.M.S.).

ADVERTISING THE KEY. An interesting opinion is given to-day by Mr. S. Hutchinson, who is acting as agent for Amalgamated Dairies Ltd. in Shanghai, and as an honorary trade commissioner for the New Zealand Government. “The East,” he says, “can absorb a considerable amount more of the Dominion’s goods than it is doing to-day. The key to the situation is advertising.” Pointing out that in Shanghai alone his firm has sold, among other products, 81,3081 b of New Zealand butter in 1933, Mr. S. Hutchinson says that this was accomplished in spite of heavier freight rates than those from Australia and the total absence of any assistance. “If advertising was done and, in the instance of dairy products pound for pound assistance given by the board,” says he, “we should get somewhere.” Considering that the “assistance” to the sales of our butter ‘ Britain is going on at the tune of £2,028,609 marketing expenses per year (without mentioning the Dairy Board’s huge “advertising campaign”) there is no wonder that the prospects in the East appear to be nd prospects at all. Now, to jump to India, here is what a correspondent is writing to-day: “I consider India the world’s best butter market. I don’t know how well you know India, but if you have travelled through you know as I do that we are mad not to. concentrate on India as a market for our dairy products.”

DEMAND INCREASING. Because of facts at my disposal, proving that the demand for butter is increasing enormously in the Far East and fresh evidence pouring from everywhere, I definitely cannot endorse the damaging remarks made by Mr. W. Polson about the trade with the Far East, the more so because I quite agree with his. most important (though inconsistent with his previous statements) declaration that “the idea of fostering Eastern trade should not be discarded.” I claim that additional markets in the East, where the ruling prices for butter, cheese and milk are actually exceeding those now, received in Britain, do exist, and are open to absorb quantity of dairy products proportionate to the ratio of efficiency and funds of organisation to be set up, and that it is completely in our hands to retard or to accelerate the process of conquering these markets. Politics is the most damnable handicap existing to-day in the management of our export system. Our indifference to the markets offering themselves in the East is based on the opinions of few

leaders in business, who persistently dispute the fact that opportunities do exist there. Disorganised and petty trading, underquoting, speculations on a small scale, are already plain apparent between the East and New Zealand. Faulty routes, erratic deals, etc., are in evidence. We must admit that we are failing in developing proper trade. Why ? Because we do stimulate and instill our dependence on only one market in the world. Because we do cultivate a policy of insularity and helplessness in general. Because we are suffering from an inferiority complex and fear everything that is “Chinese.” Nor do we have the facilities for expansion. Neither do we bother about improving the shipping in existence, flor do we pay any attention to create export credits. We ’are not a Roosevelt, who is setting up to-day three special banks in Washington to help exporters to finance their shipments abroad, with the United States Farm Administrator as head of these banks. We have no office of special advise? on foreign trade, established to-day in the United States of America with powers to negotiate commercial treaties and to agree with "any individual, corporation, association, group or business agency.”

A WASTE OF MONEY. Apparently we decide instead upon going again to waste time and money in parleys with Britain, which will lead us nowhere. Members of the Dairy Board, taking with them one of our Cabinet Ministers (or vice versa) are only too keen on sailing to London on a mission of complaint and lamentation. But was it not Mr. T. Baxter himself who came here specially to tell us everything about our only market, who remarked recently in London: “I am not satisfied they (New Zealanders) have given full consideration to finding alternative markets for their dairy produce.” And did not our Mr. D. Fulton, of the Dairy Board, evoke surprise in official circles when, upon his arrival in London he said the well-leamt by heart formula about abolishing tariffs on British goods, whereas the cablegram added: “Britain, in spite' of the offer, is determined in the interests of her own fanners, to regulate imports from New Zealand and other Dominions produce”? As far as November, 1933, I published a letter saying that a subsidy to exporting dairy farmers is inevitable unless we speedily open new markets, beginning with the Far East. Nobody, of course, paid the smallest attention. No markets were open. And now Mr. W. Polson is comforting us by saying that no subsidy is forthcoming. In the meantime, let us hope that we shall not read any more notes, such as written by Mr. A. J. Smith, of Cardiff, New Zealand, dairy farmer, deceased, who wrote: “1 don’t intend being responsible for making butter-fat below cost, viz., 6d'to 7d I will let someone else try it.”