RESTRICTIONS ON KILLING

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21510, 27 June 1935, Page 10

RESTRICTIONS ON KILLING

DEPUTATION TO MEAT BOARD •PRODUCERS' CASE PRESENTED A deputation protesting against the restrictions on killing at Messrs Borthwick and Sons, Ltd., waited on the Meat Board at the end of last week and detailed to the board the opinions of the producers. Messrs J. D. Ruddenklau (Waimate), I. L. Coop (Ataahua), and R. D. Robinson (Tinwald), forming the deputation, were accompanied by Mr W. Richardson (Oamaru), through whom their case was presented. After a free and frank discussion the board promised an answer to Mr Ruddenklau within a few days. Sir William Perry, the actingchairman, presided, the deputation being received at the offices of _ the board, Farmers' Institute, Wellington. The chairman, Mr T. A. Duncan, was absent in England. Mr H. D. Acland, the Canterbury representative, was unfortunately prevented from attending through illness. The deputation had petitions signed by 1200 farmers in Canterbury, owners of 1.500.000 sheep. In presenting the case Mr Richardson stated that no organised canvass had been made, the petitions being the result of spasmodic efforts in different districts. In the opinion of the deputation probably double Ihe number of signatures could quite easily have been obtained. Opposition to Restrictions The feelings of producers in Canterbury were at fever heat, said Mr Richardson. At the time the restrictions came into operation the operators were giving id more than New Zealand parity as given by the Meat Board: at the present time, by a gradual decrease, the operators were giving iid under parity as given by the board. The position, when examined, proved even worse than at first sight, because, when -id more than parity was being given, the market at Home was falling; at the present time the market was firm, with a rising tendency. Every business man must realise that the time to be careful was on a falling market and that the time to pay the price was on a firm or rising market. Further, said Mr Richardson, from March 4 to the present time, the board's addition to parity for an increase in skin values was only .Old. After careful examination of the subject the deputation was firmly convinced that a fair addition wQuid be Id. Parity, therefore, should be 7ilßd, not 7.5<)d. The deputation further argued that the restriction was utterly futile, because on last year's killing at Borthwick's, it amounted to only one and a half days' additional killing at capacity lor each of the six works —in other words, less than one hour 45 minutes additional killing a month in a season of .seven months. Compared with Borthwick's peak year, it amounted to only four days' additional killing, or four hours .'ls minutes additional killing a month. Additional Arguments The deputation emphasised that the fanner:; knew the board's views, and if it was the farmers' wish to restrict Borthwick's they had it in their own hands. Over a number 'of years Borthwick's had .consistently made _ the price which, it was the deputation s firm conviction, any interference must tend to lower. It realised that Borthwick's was not a charitable institution—they gave the price to fill their works. Should there be sufficient interference, they would get all that the board allowed them to kill by coming in with the other companies, which they eventually would do. They must be well aware that there were two ways of making money, one by a big kill at a small profit, the other by a small kill at a big profit. The producers' interests were best served bv the former.

The deputation asked the board 1o allow Borthwick's to increase their kill to a maximum of 800,000. It war; not Ihe wish of the deputation that Borthwick's should in any way be allowed to monopolise killing in Canterbury; it felt that the board's decision not to allow the company to buy. build, or add to its works, was a wise one. Any interference. however, with their killing would only mean an increase in costs. Since Borthwick's were the only works to make the price interference with them must result, as had already been shown, in a very heavy decline in prices to the producer. A copy of the deputation's case was presented to the board. Later the board waited on. the Minister for Agriculture, the Hon. C. E. Macmillan, and presented him also with a copy.