MEAT
Position has been exhaustively discussed with Ministry of Food
down the lines of your cables 13th [1], 24th August. [2] It has
been impossible to induce Ministry to agree to contract purchase
of quantity in excess of 225,000 tons although they are prepared
to retain clause in the present contract governing additional
quantities.

In discussion we have strongly pressed every argument for
acceptance of your figure. I am convinced that nothing further can
be done with the Food Ministry and the matter will have to be
taken to a higher plane if any increase is to be obtained. Broad
arguments employed by Ministry are the following:-that stocks of
meat had been built up in the United Kingdom and cold stores were
substantially full; that the new stores that were being built
could not be expected to add greatly to the present capacity as
they would be required to make good the stores which it must be
anticipated would be destroyed by enemy action. That Port
facilities were already reduced and would be further reduced as
air warfare intensified; that in view of these facts it would not
be necessary or practicable to import into United Kingdom in the
second year of the war quantity of meat as great as those [sic]
imported in the first year. That in these circumstances it was
necessary to reduce supplies from all sources; that New Zealand
was being reduced to 275,000 tons; that this figure and 225,000
tons for Australia was based on average proportion of imports of
the two countries over three years 1936/38. That Argentine
imports, the reduction of which was strongly pressed to make room
for full Dominion imports, were being reduced even more
drastically. On this point, see later; that there was likely to be
an increase in canned meat requirements which probably would be
not less than 10,000 tons representing approximately 28,000 tons
of frozen meat; that a carry over was brought into the estimate
and that the carry over at the end of the contract period must
also be taken into account.

Summarising they argue that if all the above factors are taken
into consideration plus bacon figures which now agreed at 24,000
tons, see separate cables [3], Australia's position substantially
met.

Throughout the discussion we maintained that 225,000 tons was
insufficient even as a basis for discussion. In pressing for
290,000, We stressed steps taken to reduce our estimate to this
figure, that it may be essential for Australia to protect beef,
mutton, lamb, industries and that you were not prepared to
increase pork at the expense of former categories.

We stressed war effort was costing Australia vast sums of money
and to continue that effort, it was necessary to maintain
Australian industries. We emphasised that Australia was in the war
and that Argentine was not and that any necessity for a cut should
be imposed on the latter. We asked for Argentine figures but
Ministry indicated that they were not authorised to disclose
these. These figures we could probably obtain, but I doubt their
usefulness, as unofficially we have ascertained that Argentine,
since French collapse, cut to something in the region of 55% of
pre-war supplies.

Present position is that we have refused to accept Ministry's
proposal.

Before taking matter up on a higher level will wait your comments
and instructions.

BRUCE