MEAT PROPOSALS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 75, Issue 179, 1 August 1932, Page 7

MEAT PROPOSALS

EFFECT IN BRITAIN ON DANGEROUS GROUND .SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS [By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright] OTTAWA, duly 29. A tentative but authoritative British view regarding the outcome of the meat proposals states that while the exigencies of bargaining may impel Britain to acceded to a small duty on meat, there are special considerations apart from the extensive financial interests in the Argentine which make the British leaders reluctant to remove meat from the free list. There is no certainty that a small duty would increase the price of meat to the British housewife, and it is noted that the butter price has actually fallen since the 10 per cent, duty was imposed and there is no steady drop in the general market, but everyone hopes that prices of primary produce will shortly have a natural rise, in which case the public would contribute the amount of the duty, however small, in an increased meat price.

Britain might decide for the sake of the Dominions that it is worth while to increase the duties on butter, cheese, and eggs from the present 10 per cent, to 15. When it comes to the question of removing wheat and meat from the free list, it provokes discussion, because it affects basic commodities. The slogan which over all others would excite the British public against the Government would be, “They are taxing bread and meat.” While the British Government might be able to persuade the public that they have gained sufficient concessions from the Dominions to justify such a duty, the British realise that within, say, two years there will be bitter criticism because the natural increase of prices in the interim would be blamed on to the removal of wheat and meat from the free list. Dearer Beef and Worse. The British consider it problematical whether the Dominions would gain an appreciable advantage from a small duty on meat, even if, with marketing conditions continuing as at present, the prices underwent a slight natural increase. The view at present taken is that unless the Australians and South Africans could rapidly make enormous improvements in the quality of their stock, they would be asking the British consumer to curtail the consumption of the high-grade Argentine article to eat a larger quantity of an inferior article. It is logical that the British housewife would warmly resent coercion to buy inferior beef at a higher price. Such a result—which the British Government would hesitate to bring about, knowing that it would cause an imperilling swing of public opinion—in an industrial country like Britain might eventually turn pubic sentiment against Imperial preferences as being bought too dearly. As far as the British farmer is concerned he has already suffered greatly through the fall of lamb and mutton prices, but the marked discrepancy always prevailing between English fresh and imported meat means that ho would practically be unaffected by any small duty imposed on the foreign product. The whole crux of the Dominions’ case, particularly the Australian case, is that a quanitative restriction would not actually and need not be permitted to raise the price of beef to the British consumer. Without the ;juoto the. Argentine would bo able to flood the British market at all seasons, even soiling below cost or at least undercutting frozen beef which the Dominions consider should have some protection. They have made meat the, strongest plank of their Conference programme, realising that if the present, conditions are allowed to continue the great Australian primary industry is in a hopeless case SOMETHING WRONG MR BALDWIN’S FIGURES N.Z. AND AUSTRALIAN TRADE. [ Per Press Association.] AUCKLAND, July 30. Commenting on the figures quoted at the Ottawa Conference by Mr. Stanley Baldwin, Dr. Neale, secretary of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce, said that there was something seriously wrong. Mr. Baldwin was reported as saying that Britain’s imports from New Zealand in 1930 were valued at £44,900,000, and the exports to New Zealand at £18,700,000. According to the 1932 Official Year Book the figures were £36,000,000 and £21,000,000, an apparent balance of £15,000,000, not of £26,000,000. Even £15,000,000 exaggerated the position, as much of New Zealand’s exports found their way to Europe. These re-exports amounted to some £7,000.000, so that the rotil balance of trade was about £8,000,000, not £26,000,000. It was difficult to see on what basis Mr. Baldwin’s figures were arrived at. In the case of the Australian figures Dr. Neale said that according to the Commonwealth Year Book, Australia actually imported more from Britain than she sent there. EMPIRE ECONOMICS CURRENCY AND EXCHANGE L British Official Wireless.] BUGBY, July 29. At Ottawa the committee on mono tary and financial questions met yesterday, when representatives of each delegation made a general statement on the present position in currency and exchange. The discussion is stated to have been concerned princi pally with an outline of commodity price levels and the instability of exchange rates. The discussions will bo renewed to-day, when Mr. Chamberlain will make a statement.