Marketing Of Meat Exports

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29724, 18 January 1962, Page 12

Marketing Of Meat Exports

There was much sound sense : in Mr F. P. Walsh’s recent comments on the dependence of the New Zealand economy upon the primary industries’ ability to earn < overseas funds. But the i president of the Federation ; of Labour can serve the national interest far more appropriately than by offering support for a “ farm- “ ers’ selling organisation ' to compete with established private exporters of New Zealand meat. Already, 1 within the existing framework of the meat industry, there are many opportunities for farmers to share directly in the marketing of their produce. Meat exporting is a highly speculative trade; and success depends upon the availability of substantial resources to tide operators over adverse periods and to maintain efficient, expensive plant. An organisation of the kind Mr Walsh seems to envisage would need to be fairly big to have a chance; and what might be the effect upon the industry generally?

Although much credit is due to the New Zealand Meat Producers’ Board (which is essentially an instrument for market promotion, and not for commercial operations on the lines of freezing companies), it should not be forgotten that, without the enterprise of private exporters. New' Zealand's export outlets for meat could not have been expanded and diversified during recent years in response to the challenge of world trade uncertainties For example, sales of ew’e mutton to Japan were largely developed by a privately-owned Canterbury company Through the Meat Export Development Corporation. the Meat Board can already participate modestly in the initial exploitation of new markets; but it is noteworthv that all the corporation’s capital has been furnished by the freezing companies. The board also supports—financially and in principle—producer co-operatives that offer farmers in both the North and South Islands an alternative to selling their meat through the export companies. In spite of this trend towards a wider range of marketing procedures, it would be dangerous to reduce further the demarcation (originally very

strict) between the functions of the Meat Board and those of existing commercial exporters. Mr Walsh has conveniently omitted to mention unionists’ irresponsibility as an important contributor to the financial problems of meat operators, and therefore to the reduction of returns to producers. If freezing workers (to whom Mr Walsh addressed his remarks) were readier to comply with agreed terms of employment, and if they were more co - operative with their employers, farmers’ worries about drought losses would be lessened, and national prosperity would be better assured. Mr Walsh’s main task is plainly to inculcate a fairer attitude among his own supporters, rather than to volunteer unwanted advice on meat marketing technicalities.