THE FREEZING COMPANIES

Press, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23446, 29 September 1941, Page 4

THE FREEZING COMPANIES

REMARKS MADE AT MEETING REPLY BY SHEEPOWNERS’ PRESIDENT Remarks by Mr I. L. M. Coop during a discussion on lamb prices paid by freezing companies, at a meeting of the executive of the North Canterbury district of the Farmers’ Union, were commented on by Mr E. Hay, president of the Canterbury Sheepowners’ Union, in a statement to “The Press’’ on Saturday. Mr Coop referred at the meeting to the previous statement by Mr Hay at the annual meeting of the Sheepowners’ Union, suggesting that Mr Hay had been misinformed and that his remarks must have “misled farmers to a certain extent.” “Mr Coop, at the meeting of the Farmers’ Union district executive on Wednesday, challenged my statements regarding the services rendered by freezing companies to producers in general,” said Mr Hay. “I can quite understand Mr Coop’s remarks, which must be based on the reactions of the producer under to-day's difficult conditions, “But, in reply, I would say this—that I have been a producer for the whole of my life. I have also been president of the Sheepowners’ Union for many years, and approach considerations of all problems from the point ; of view of the producers’ interest. On the other hand, I have been a director of one of the largest freezing com- : panics for several years, and therefore have had the privilege of seeing both sides of the question. 1 "Reasonable and Fair” “From this background, and speaking as a producer, I feel that I am i justified in repeating the statement I previously made—that freezing companies have rendered and are rendering a great service to the producers, and that the producers can rest con- ; tent on their part (hat they have re- • ceived reasonable and fair treatment at the hands of the companies.” ; In his statement to the Sheepowners’ i Union, said Mr Hay, he had said that 1 "with the enormous increase in costs : it was astonishing that freezing charges ’ were as low as they were.” If Mr i Coop considered this was based on wrong information and must have mis- ( led farmers, it was a matter for sur- : prise. "It is common knowledge that ; costs in the freezing industry have risen enormously in recent years, as a ;

result of higher wages and the trt* mendous increase in the costs of materials used by freezing companies in their various processes and in the upkeep of their plants.” he said. “As chairman of the Canterbury Sheepowers’ Union, I have a due sense of responsibility in making any public statements, and I am careful to inform myself of the facts. If Mr Coop will go to the trouble of informing himself as to the extent of the increase m freezing companies’ costs since the war began he will find that my statement as quoted above is correct. “The rest of Mr Coop's statement re* fers to the prices paid for lamb dur* ing the 1940-41 season, and, as Mr Coop , does not associate my name with hIS remark under that heading, 1 do no* feel called upon to contribute to tn* discussion—except to point out that in the last annual report issued by the New Zealand Meat Producers’ Boardi the following statement appears:-* 'Schedule prices for fat stock: The board has throughout the season closely watched the schedule prices being offered for the various classes of fat stock, and has obtained from time to time through the Primary Indus* tries Controller particulars relating to wool pulls, pelt, and hide values, etc. On different occasions during the sea* son the board has successfully taken up (he question when it considered that (he fat stock schedule was due for an upward revision.’ ”