Thames Star MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1937. PROBABILITY OF BUTTER LEVY.

Thames Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 20188, 13 December 1937, Page 2

Thames Star

MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1937. PROBABILITY OF BUTTER LEVY.

“With malice toward* none; with charity for all; with firmneea in the right, ae God give* ua to ee* the right."—Lincoln.

When the Hon. W. Nash returned to the Dominion last August he warned the dairy industry that a movement was afoot in Britain in favour of a levy on all imported dairy produce in the interests of the home dairying industry (says the Taranaki Herald). Mr. Nash attempted to combat this agitation by jpointing out that a levy would be discriminatory as regards New Zealand because dairy produce normally amounts to 40 per cent, of the Dominion’s exports. No other unit of the Empire has a percentage of even one-quarter of this. Nevertheless, the agitation continues and recent articles have disclosed how official | organs are emphasising the favoured position of the New Zealand farmer in comparison with the British farmer. Arguments in favour of a levy are being advanced with

force and persistence. It is well that the New Zealand producer should he aware of this fact and should take the most active measures to see that his interests are protected. At the same time it must he recognised that each new concession asked of and received from the Government will he used as a lever by British dairying interests in bringing pressure to hear on the Home Government. “The Home Fanner,” official organ of the British Milk Board, asks pointedly:— “Could they (New Zealand producers) complain if a duty of I] per lh of butter Avere ultimately to fall upon their shoulders as pay- ' ment for the privilege of entering a market in which the domestic producer’s costs, on a similar basis, are three times their oav»?” Tt is argued that freight charges from Ncav Zealand are paid for from the exchange benefit and it is contended that as Ncav Zealand is supplying only one-third of Britain’s total butter imports competition Avould make it certain that a levy of l|d per lb could not he placed on the consumer. The Avhole meaning of this agitation, hoAvever, is that the Ncav Zealand dairy industry would he penalised for its efficiency and natural advantages in order to holster up a home industry that needs hut does not deserve assistance. On the one hand there is the British Government’s quite natural desire to help the home agricultural industry, especially in vi'cav of the risk of Avar and endan- : gored seaAvays. On the other hand ■ there is the right of a young unit of the Empire to exploit her re- 1 sources efficiently Avithout restric- 1 tion and to find a free market in ' the Old Country. Tt is a difficult ( choice for the British Government 1 to make. 1