PRODUCE BOARDS.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20036, 18 September 1930, Page 13

PRODUCE BOARDS.

MERGER SUGGESTED. DISCUSSION IN THE HOUSE. [THE PRESS Special Service.] WELLINGTON.' September 17. An amalgamation of the several Boards at .present controlling the export of New Zealand's primary products was advocated by Mr H. GDickie (R., Patea) during the debate on the report of the-Agricultural, Pastoral Industries, and Stotk Committee on the Meat Export Control Amendment Bill in. the House of tives this afternoon. Discussion on the report was- interrupted last week. Mr Dickie said he was of the opinion that the time had arrived .when the various Producers' Boards should be merged into one Board. Meat Board Criticised. "Too many people are riding on the backs of the farmers," said Mr Dickie. "The functions of these Boards are quite limited: • those of the Meat Board particularly so. .Its functions are corifiued to making contracts with shipping companies and advertising, and to do that the Meat Board levies over £30,000 a y« ar on the meat producers of the country. The Meat Board.. through its officers, receives a considerable amount of publicity in the Press, and we are told that through the Board's efforts large sums have been saved to the producer.. That is mere newspaper propaganda fomented in the Board s oiffices. The Board has been making contracts three, years ahead on a falling market. That is bad business in any concern. Notwithstanding a surplus of storage in London the Board purchased a site there for £30,000. and I maintain that a bad bargain was made. I submit that the Meat Board has done little or nothing to help the producers in their fight- against the great combines at Home. It is claimed for the Board that it grades meat —that is a fallacy. The grading of the Meat Board is not worth a hill of beans to the producers of this country: No one can sell on the Meat Board's grading because it does not exist on the London market." '

Caution Urged. . Mr F. VVaite (R., Clutha) advised the House to exercise care before proceeding to- alter the method of- election as proposed in the Bill. He did not think, the proposal to lump the Boards together should be adopted. Irrespective of how bad things might be, matters would be worse if there were not combined Board. In regard to the Meat Board, the position was somewhat different, in that there was a certain ' amount of Government finance behind the Board. If Government representatives were needed on the Meat Board they were not needed on the Dairy Control Board, and commercial representatives were not needed on either. "Tf there is going to be any alteration," said Mr Waite. "Let/us get' the Government representatives and commercial representatives out of these Boards. If there are commercial representatives on the Meat Board the sooner they are off it the better. In regard to Government representatives the position is somewhat different, as far as the Meat Board is concerned, in that a certain amount of Government finance is behind the Board. The House should be careful before it meddles with the control of the legislation it. has now." ■■ ' Mr W. L. Martin (Lab., Raglan) said the previous speaker had referred to the fact that trade representatives and Government representatives were on the Boards, but the Bill sought to eliminate the trade representatives and to eliminate Government representatives until the Government became financially interested in the Board. He hoped the House would give serious consideration to the proposals raised bv the member for Gisborne, who had introduced the Bill. The great bulk of the farmers up and down the country was desirous of a change. Mr C. E. Macmillan (R,, Tauranga) said the move for a change should come from the producers. No Change Desired. "As a member of the Committee, and as the representative of a considerable area in Canterbury, where large quantities of prime lamb are produced, I may say that no evidence was given that any change in the Meat Control Act was desired, at 'least by South Island producers," said Mr T. D. Burnett (R., Temuka). He said that the conference of sheepowners, held recently in Wellington, stated distinctly that .any change in the system of •election as proposed in .the Bill, would be harmful to. sheepowners. The existing Act contained very • wide

powers, and there was no call for the Bill. The Act was wide enough to, protect primary producers from any trust that might operate. Mr Burnett added that he was,nervous about legislation, which might destroy competition. Mr J. Bitchener (R., Waitaki) said there was a large number of meat producers in the electorate he represented, and he had never heard from them any desire for a change.' They had never been consulted for their views. Motive Imputed. Mr W. J. Poison (Ind., Stratford) said there was a feeling in the House that the Bill was the outcome of a vendetta between the member for Gisborne and the member for Mid-Can-terbury. Mr Speaker: The honourable gentleman should not impute motives. Mr Polsori: There is a feeling that the two members are antagonistic. The Committee did not consider the question from that point of view. There was a feeling in many quarters that 'something should be done to make the Board more democratic. Mr T. W. Mac Donald .(P., Wairarapa) said the .Bill was an advance on the existing law. The report was laid on the table of-the House.