QUOTA FOR BUTTER.

Waikato Times, Volume 113, Issue 18946, 16 May 1933, Page 10

QUOTA FOR BUTTER.

rHE PRODUCERS’ POSITION

FACTORY MANAGER’S CRITIOISM.

Interest in the question of restricting butter exports from New Zealand so as to help the market at Home has been renewed by the publication of extracts from a memorandum Issued by the Rt. Hon, J. G. 'Coates, some of those in the industry in Christchurch, when approached by a Sun reporter, were not prepared to give their views one way or the other until they had examined the memorandum fully. Mr C. P. Agar, managing-director of the Tai Tapu Dairy Co., Ltd., however, had some definite views to express. “Is it not better to sell 941 b of butter at 90s than to fight for the right to sell 1001 b at 70s?" he asked. “In examining the whole position in regard to restriction we must take the long view. By our present policy we are antagonising the very people with whom we should be co-operat-ing. It is all right fighting for the right of free entry into Britain’s markets, but the producer is not receiving enough to cover the cost of production; and it is making the same condition exist in the Old Country. It means that the farmer is expected to live on no income at all, and the surprising thing to me is that the farming community has stood for It as long as it has.

Butter Should Go Up.

“There is no earthly reason why butter should not go up 20s a cwt. But the producers have been told ‘Box on at the present prices. Yon have the right of free entry for the next three years. Whatv doe sit matter?'

"If the farmer understood the position that is existing he would rise up and sweep away the control boards and ask the Government to take it under its wing. 'lt is appalling. But the farmer by his silence is apparently satisfied. He has been led into a fallacy as he was led into compulsory dairy control. "Here is another thing. It is well to remember that New Zealand asked for restriction. Its request to Great Britain to restrict imports, of foreign butters brought about consideration of the quota question. When asked to share it, New Zealand said ‘No; we should be treated as a county of England. But we can put on any duty we like on your imported goods as well as a 25 per cent exchange and penalise your markets here, but you must allow us the right of free entry. And you must not complain’.” It was pointed out by another authority that New Zealand’s greatest difficulty was the increased exports from Australia. The Australian Dairy Board was definitely opposed to any suggestion of a quota. Australia was unable to take any view of the butter question except as to how it affected the local prices. “With its Paterson Scheme,” he said, “Australia is keeping the local market at a fictitious level, and is consequently reducing the quantities of butter that can be sold in the country, and is thereby increasing its exports considerably.

Reduce to World Parity.

"Some definite effort should be made by the New Zealand dairy industry and the Government to get Australia to reduce her local price to approximately world parity. “If it were to take off the prohibitive duty against New Zealand butter, it would reduce the price to about New Zealand parity, and there would he some protection in the cost of shipment from here." Another angle discussed was that of the accumulating supplies at Home. It was held that the surplus stocks were not caused by the increased exports, but by the decrease in the reexports to the Continent, because of

the quota system adopted by the \ European countries. This had made Great Britain the dumping ground for • the surplus of foreign butler, and caused a tremendous increase in stocks. “If the World Economic Conference is going to hasten the freer How of trade,” it was stated, “there is a possibility of the European countries abolishing or amending their quotas.”