Thames Star TUESDAY, AUGUST 24, 1937. FUTURE OF DAIRY MARKETING.

Thames Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 20094, 24 August 1937, Page 2

Thames Star

TUESDAY, AUGUST 24, 1937. FUTURE OF DAIRY MARKETING.

“With mafic* toward* non*; with charity for all; with firmnw in th* right, a* God giv** uc to ••• th* right."—Lincoln.

While praise is given to the Government by Mr. W. Goodfellow for its introduction of orderly marketing in the dairy industry, he is careful to point out that costs must be kept to the 'very minimum in view of the revival of the proposal for a levy on dairy produce entering Britain. The Minister for Marketing, the Hon. W. Nash, although taking a hopeful 'vicAV of the position as it affects New Zealand, can give no assurance that a levy will not be imposed on New Zealand produce. He has been able to point out to the British Government that a levy would be discriminatory against New Zealand because Britain is the only market for her dairy products, which form 40 per cent, of her total exports. As the largest per capita purchaser of British goods, New Zealand also claims special consideration. The only assurance Mr. Nash has received is that no levy will ho imposed while the price of butter remains above 100/a cwt. and cheese above 56/-. Unfortunately the burden of a levy would have to be carried when prices are low and when producers are least able to stand it. Mr. Nash believes that a levy of the very minimum amount would cost New Zealand producers £750,000 a year, but Mr. Goodfellow’s estimate is £2,000,000, the basis being an import duty of 10 per cent., which was the original proposal. The reality of the British farmers’ discontent with the results from their milk pool cannot he doubted and increased imports from Australia. and New Zealand have been largely responsible for the failure. The official British ’view is that the imposition of a levy on imports is more desirable than a Government grant to cover losses on manufacturing milk products. It is argued that a grant would be used to reduce retail prices and that the consequent extension of liquid sales would merely relieve the Government’s responsibility and would not benefit the producer. The British Government has also been influenced by the fear of war and public opinion will probably be in favour of increasing the home production of foodstuffs by assisting the agricultural industries. It is in this atmosphere that the dairy levy scheme has been revived.