Meat Board Elections In Retrospect

Press, Volume C, Issue 29602, 26 August 1961, Page 6

Meat Board Elections In Retrospect

The New Zealand Meat Producers’ Board has its two new members. They are Mr Charles Hilgendorf, of Sherwood, Mid-Can-terbury, and Mr C. F. Jones, of Ohaeawai, North Auckland. Meat Board elections in the past have gone by almost unnoticed. That there has been more interest in this election than for many years is probably attributable more than anything else to the fact that the meat industry and the whole country are facing challenging and relatively unpredictable times.

The board is facing a situa. tion in which lamb, the country’s pre-eminent meat export product, is selling on the United Kingdom market at prices 7d to 9d per lb cheaper than a year ago with the prospect of the new killing season opening with prices based much lower than last season, and on top of all this there is uncertainty about the whole future cutlook for meat in this one great market for New Zealand lamb in the world. Anything that happens to restrict New Zealand meat and lamb sales in that market could place the whole country and the industry in a very ticklish position indeed.

Clear Opinion The industry, as represented by the electoral committee of the board, has this week gone very clearly on record as demanding nothing less than continued unrestricted duty-free entry into the United Kingdom market to safeguard itself and it has backed unreservedly the chairman of the board, Mr J. Ormond, as the most .outspoken spokesman in the country on the dangers for New Zealand associated with the possible entry of Britain into the Common Market. What will happen when Britain joins the Common Market, if indeed she does, is by no means clear as noone knows what concessions she may gain for the Commonwealth, but on the basis of the general outline of the agricultural policy for the E.E.C. the chairman of the Meat Board and his advisers not at all happy at what they see. What do they see? It seems that the common tariff for beef and veal entering the E.E.C. will be 20 per cent. “Threshold” prices are proposed for different kinds of beef and levies will be imposed to bring the prices of beef up to the threshold prices before coming on to the Common Market. These levies will go into, a stabilisation fund in the interests of domestic agriculture in the Common Market. In addition a system of import certificates is proposed for frozen beef. These may be suspended if there is a danger of injury to Community producers. This is the framework of a protected agriculture geared for self-suffici-ency.

Will the same sort of policy apply to imports of mutton and lamb into the

E.E.C.? The Meat Board has ■ approached representatives of : the E.E.C. on this crucial i point and Dr. S. L. Mansholt, : vice-president of the Com. i mission of the European . Economic Community, has • stated verbally that the geni eral policy for beef imports i would -apply to mutton and I lamb. The London represen- ■ tative .of the E.E.C. has said • in a letter to the board “I :■ am told that the external • tariff for these two products ■is to be 20 per cent, ad : valorem . . .” • Of course the critical point I as far as New Zealand meat ' exports to Britain is concerned is what concessions Britain may gain from the E.E.C. on this country’s behalf. The omens for this are . not very .bright. There are almost daily reports of an j uncompromising attitude to , British overtures—a virtual , .take it or leave it.

Even if she entered the E.E.C. on unfavourable terms to New Zealand Britain would still have to import meat from this country; but as the price of meat in Britain would have to increase to the common E.E.C. price of these commodities this might well inhibit, the desirable growth in consumption. In the E.E.C. the high cost of production by the domestic industry principally determines the price—a high one—and the consumer pays directly for this by dear goods. Again the E.E.C. aims at considerable reorganisation and expansion of its own agriculture so that Britain’s needs would increasingly be filled by her fellow E.E.C. members in preference to New Zealand.

To Serve U.K. All this could be highly damaging to an industry that has been largely developed to serve the British market, and which in spite of strenuous endeavours- to find new outlets is still very largely dependent on the British market These dangers, as well as the existing problems of marketing more lamb in the United Kingdom and developing new markets, are likely to overshadow future deliberations of the board and there is no question that lower margins of profit to the lamb producer, both recent and in prospect, have induced farmers throughout the country and board members to look a little search-

ingly at the structure of the industry in this country. There has been sympathy for some sort of over-all marketing scheme possibly on the lines of the Dairy Products "Marketing Commission. Dissatisfaction with the present deficiency payments scheme for meat has been a factor in this. But the very great costs involved in taking over the meat in this country, the shipping of it and establishing a selling organisation on the other side of the world, as well as the unhappy experience of the dairy industry in recent months has not commended this proposal to the industry. This, like the more limited co-operative marketing schemes already operating, has primarily in mind the assurance of maximum returns to the producers.

There is no question that today a majority of producers see a place for the co-operatives in the meat scene as an element of competition. They may indeed be a sort of 'half-way 1 ise to a more ambitious marketing scheme. But it seems that there may well be a growing awareness, even among sympathisers with the co-operatives on the board—and some board members are directors of co-operatives—-that these organisations should be soundly based commercial enterprises and should not have to lean heavily on the Meat Board funds for support.

Change Unlikely The position then is that in the near future there may be no radical changes in the industry, but it has to be borne in mind that, even admitting that the marketing of meat is a notoriously fickle business an-' that even experts can be confounded, producers find it distinctly unsettling to see losses made in one season recouped several times over in the next The changes in- the membership of the Meat Board this week are reasons for both, satisfaction and sadness. There have been few more able farming administrators in the country than Sir Walter Mulholland, who has this week ended an association with the board of nearly 20 years. A man who worked with him on the board during the war years recalled recently what a valuable service he did for the farmers in that period when the board, in the time of bulk purchase of meat, had to negotiate with the stabilisation authorities. Sir Walter Mulholland, whose association with farming organisations goes back nearly 60 years, has combined a mature wisdom with a spirit of progress; and with all that he has a happy knack of being able to express himself clearly. Vision At home at Ladybank, Darfield. his early entry into the field of bulk handling of grain has distinguished him as a man well ahead of his times, and in the ’last year in the meat industry he has fathered the establishment of the Meat Research Institute, geared to help meet the requirements of new and changing demands for meat. But there can be satisfaction that a man, also progressive as a farmer, with considerable experience as an administrator, has taken his place. The son of one of the country's most eminent teachers and scientists, rtf. F W. Hilgendorf, Mr hilgendorf was one of the first New Zealand farmers to be selected as a Nuffield scholar to visit Britain, he has had a long and distinguished record of service in Federated Farmers, has served on the board of Canterbury Agricultural College, the council of Scientific and Industrial Research, and was recently appointed to the new University Grants Committee.