DAIRY PRODUCE QUOTA

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 77, Issue 82, 7 April 1934, Page 11

DAIRY PRODUCE QUOTA

BOARD BEING INFLUENCED? WAIKATO MAN'S VIEWS. “It will take something more than the statement of the Minister of Agriculture to satisfy those connected with the dairy industry that Cabinet is not endeavouring to influence the Dairy Board to accept the quota idea,” said Mr. U. J. Parlane, general manager of the New Zealand Co-operative Dairy Co., Ltd., to a Waikato Times representative, and in order to clarify the position, he suggested that the gist of the discussion that took place between Cabinet and the board last week should be published. “At the conference held in Wellington on March 13, the Prime Minister is reported as stating ‘The question of regulation is out of the way for the next two yours.’ In view of this, why is it necessary for a delegation to travel to London almost immediately, for the purpose of discussing the policy to bo adopted after the termination of that period? In fact, conditions may then have entirely changed, and we may have cause to regret any de cisiou made at this juncture. “Admittedly, it was the decision of the conference that a delegation should be sent to London for the purpose of discussion with authorities in Britain, but whether the delegation should make the trip immediately is another matter. Indeed, the whole question is of such extreme importance to the industry and the Dominion as a whole, that the Dairy Board would bo well advised to consult further with the Dairy Council before coming to a definite decision in regard to future action. Action Should Be Deferred. “The Minister’s statement —‘that there will be no Cabinet approval of a quota system until it is proved beyond doubt that it would be for the good of New Zealand,’ is indeed interesting, and if this is to be the attitude of Cabinet, then obviously the right thing to do is to defer action for as long a time as possible, to ensure that any decision that is made will be in the best interests of the Dominion. ” Mr. Parlano said he found it very difficult indeed to follow the Minister 's reasoning in regard to the increase in New Zealand production when he asked what was the use of increasing production, if the result of a 45,000-ton increase was a lower return by £5,000,000. It appeared to him pertinent to ask the Minister what would the position of the producer have been had production not increased. It was obvious that any increase in price that might have been enjoyed on account of 45,000 tons less production, would not have been sufficient to have offset this disability. High Tariffs Responsible. “It is pleasing to note,” said Mr. Parlane, “that the Minister appreciates the difficulties that our farmers are experiencing due to high costs, and as he no doubt realises that high tariffs are to a considerable extent responsible for this, our farmers would no doubt be interested to learn why he will not face up to the position and use whatever influence he may possess with Cabinet in the direction of bringing about free trade with Britain. “The Minister asks: ‘What would happen to New Zealand if production in Australia was unrestricted?’ This is a very pertinent question, and one that has for some time exercised the minds of many of those engaged in the dairy industry, who, realising the great increase in dairy production in Australia during recent years, and the possibility of further development, have been very much suqiriscd that our Australian friends have not been harassed by suggested restrictions and quotas as New Zealand has been. According to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, of March 20, the question of a quota has not been referred to the Australian authorities since April, 1933, and wo can only presume that this is because of the firm attitude of our Australian friends in regard thereto when the question was first mentioned.”