The Press THURSDAY, AUGUST 1, 1940. Meat Board and the Government

Press, Volume LXXVI, Issue 23087, 1 August 1940, Page 6

The Press THURSDAY, AUGUST 1, 1940. Meat Board and the Government

The recent statement to a meeting of producers by the chairman of the New Zealand Meat Producers’ Board, Mr T. A. Duncan, was disturbing and has produced disturbing consequences. Only a very casual observer will fail to be arrested and puzzled by the facts reported. The Minister for Marketing, having received by telephone some account of what Mr Duncan had said, was assured by him at an interview that this account was incorrect. In the meantime, aScurate newspaper reports appeared, quoting Mr Duncan’s anxious references to the want of precise information about the British Government's requirements of meat shipments, and became the subject of sharp inquiries in the Jiouse of Representatives. The Minister insisted that Mr Duncan had denied making ‘ any “ statement that could be interpreted that way. But when Mr Duncan saw the press reports of his address he at once made it known that they were, in fact, substantially correct. It is sufficient to say’ that the Minister was culpably careless, if not culpably clever, in using a repudiation of an inaccurate report, set before Mr Duncan by himself, as if it were the repudiation of a different and quite accurate report. Mt Nash’s obvious tenderness, under question, will explain his anxiety to dispose of the matter as fast as possible, but not the confusion of facts, But the larger issue remains. Mr Duncans statements were to the effect that, “ so far as he “knew,” the British Government’s requirements of meat products had not been definitely stated; that he had “ never seen the cablegram ” asking fflr larger supplies; that there was evidence to suggest that larger supplies were not wanted—not even the “ 10,000 extra tons of pork”; that the Meat Board had seen none of the British Government’s cabled communications; and that the Controller of Primary Production, repeatedly questioned, had replied only that it was “no use ” asking the British Government to specify its demands. It is only part of an answer to this' to say, as Mr Nash said, that “negotiations are being carried on,” that the 'New Zealand Government has “ some idea ” of the British Government’s heed for dairy pro- • duce, that “meat will be discussed later,” and that, for the present, members of Parliament might “ avoid asking questions, that are ‘‘hot helpful.” Members arb not fairly blamed if, in the interests of the producer of War supplies and therefore of the nation, they ask quest Urns that drag from the Minister information he could freely volunteer.. But the clear com-plaint-that the Meat Board is left imperfectly informed and (if follows) unconsulted was not answered at all. It is this that is most seriously disturbing. There is every reason why the Government and the Marketing Department should maintain'dose and confidential co-opera-tion with tjie board, which is their strongest and most serviceable link With the producers. ' The dangers-of side-tracking the board are both immediate and prospective; and the Minister has, unfortunately, failed to show that he is aware of them oh that he means to avoid them.