Remit On Meat Control Lost

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29855, 22 June 1962, Page 13

Remit On Meat Control Lost

(Neu? Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, June 21. Dissatisfaction with the New Zealand operations last season of overseas-owned meat companies was expressed by supporters of a South Canterbury remit on the control of meat which was before a meeting of the meat and wool section of Federated Farmers.

The context of the remit was that. in the interests of meat producers, it was necessary to control meat to the pcint of wholesale, so that it might be directed to sell to the best advantage. In moving the remit, Mr W B Trotter said that last year overseas companies took an apparent loss, and producers had lost 8s a head on their Lambs. The schedule early in the season just closed, had represented a “steal” of £2,300,000 from the Meat Board pool funds.

Referring to “vast profits” from the point of wholesale to the point of retail, he said producers were losing considerable sums on the sale of their lambs and that this was a loss in overseas exchange.

' If we are going to do any g od on this we have to control all the meat, and the board must have its powers extended to sell all over the world.” said Mr Trotter. He said that it was impossible to have competition in the purchase of meat without a fair means of disposal. He claimed that market manipulation was a fact under the prevailing system of marketing.

Estimating the difference between overseas prices and schedule prices at 10s a head, Mr B. C. Greer (Otago) said that on 17.000,000 lambs this was a difference of £8,500,000, but only half of the lambs were handled by overseas companies. Thus the loss of overseas earnings was between £4 million and £5 million.

In reply to a question on how the movers of the rem;t planned to implement effective control, Mr Trotter said the scheme envisaged the establishment of a

marketing division of the Meat Board—straightout producer control. The Government would have to come into the scheme in market relations. Pool funds would continue to be regarded as a reserve belonging to the industry. Opponents of the remit felt that to pass it as present would be dangerous, particularly with the threat of Britain becoming a member of the European Economic Community. Alternatively, it was suggested that the Meat Board be supported in its efforts to have the Meat Act amended, so that it could act as it wanted, in marketing meat. The deputy chairman of the Meat Board. Mr L. A. P. Sherriff, outlined the powers of the board and said that under the act as it stood, the beard could take over a portion of the meat, sell it on behalf of the owners and return the proceeds to them. Seme speakers, who thought the remit was too sweeping in its implications, favoured a remit which read: “In view of the serious loss of overseas funds which occurred regularly in the sale of New Zealand meat, the conference support the policy of progressive growth in producer control over the sale of meat exports, and recommends this course of action to the Meat Board and the Government.” At the end of a discussion lasting mere than an hour and a half, the conference voted against the amendment and the remit.