HOUSE UNANIMOUS ON MEAT BILL

Press, Volume CI, Issue 30005, 14 December 1962, Page 14

HOUSE UNANIMOUS ON MEAT BILL

Wider Power For Board To Influence Marketing

(from Our Parliamentary Re-porter)

WELLINGTON. December 13. Parliament today gave a second reading to the Meat Export Control Bill which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr Taiboys) said would help to remove suspicion, uncertainty and fear among meat producers. Only Mr Taiboys and Mr A. H. Nordmeyer (Opposition, Island Bay) spoke in the debate. Mr Nordmeyer welcomed the bill which removes the restriction on the Meat Board to invest in or support meat-selling and carrying companies.

“What the board and the Government are seeking to do in this bill is to give the opportunity to the producers themselves, through their board, to have a greater measure of assurance that the prices they receive for their product are, in fact, closely related to realisations,” said Mr Taiboys. With something as complex as the meat-marketing processes, when some farmers selling on their own account in London were receiving a much higher return than that received for meat sold at schedule prices in New Zealand, there was bound to be room for suspicion, uncertainty and fear, he said. “The Government believes this is an extremely unhealthy state for any industry to get into,” said Mr Talboys. There is widespread concern, and a grownng demand from the farming community that it should be given an opportunity to gauge more accurately the relationship between realisations and the price the NewZealand producer receives for his product. “The Government believes it is in the best interests of the industry as a whole that this suspicion and fear should as far as possible be removed. The bill will help in that direction.” The purpose of the bill was to enable the Meat Board, with the prior consent of the Minister of Finance, to subscribe for shares in any company selling, storing or transporting New Zealand meat, to advance money to such a company, and to guarantee any such company, said Mr Taiboys Under the 1959 amendment the board was given these powers, and also the power itself to buy and sell NewZealand meat. But in that act. the board was limited in Ihe exercise of such powers to operations in countries where no substantial market already existed for New Zealand.” said Mr Talbovs "This bill has the effect of removing that qualification from the financial powers." Mr Tnlboys said Difference in Prices He said members would be w-ell aware of the concern expressed and widely held in th.? farming community that the return the producer received for his meat was not related closely enough to the price for which the meat was sold on the London or other overseas market. From time to time producers saw. knew, or heard of.

the man who had sold meat on the owner’s account and had received as much as £1 —last season as high as 30s — above the schedule on which producers were paid for stock bought locally. “Another major factor helping to accentuate the uncertainty felt by producers is that of the 21 freezing companies in New Zealand. 13 are New Zealand-owned and eight are domiciled overseas. “About five of the overseas companies market more than 60 per cent, of New Zealand’s meat production. “I am advised that this concentration of New Zealand’s meat exports is added to by what is generally termed the ’lay-off.’ “Many New Zealand companies 'have not the financial resources to enable them to carry through to the market a large portion of the kill made in their works. Large Finns’ Sales

“The quantity of meat flaid off’ by these companies to the large overseas companies is not known exactly, but there is every reason to believe the bulk of New Zealand’s meat exports is marketed by a small number of large companies.

“Whether this tendency to a concentration constitutes a danger to New Zealand is a wide field for argument,” said Mr Taiboys. “However, there are, undoubtedly, reasons for believing that, on the occasions when someone is forced to unload parcels of meat at prices which might tend to depress the market, it is a good thing for the producer, and for New Zealand as a whole, that there be groups or companies large enough and strong enough to do what might be called a ‘vacuum cleaner exercise’ in taking up those relatively small parcels and so helping to maintain the market for New Zealand meat

“In all of this the producer needs some reassurance that his returns do reasonably reflect the realisations for that meat, and to that end the producers have asked for this extension of their board’s powers. Farmers’ Product “One must concede immediately that the meat is the farmers’ product, and it is not unreasonable that he should have some influence on the manner and the methods by which it is to be marketed. “The producer seeks some reassurance that his product

is marketed in his best interests and, therefore, the best interests of New Zealand. However, at the same time, it is true to say that farmers generally are strong in their belief in the principle of private meat-trading.” The Minister of Defence (Mr Eyre): It would like it. Mr Taiboys said the concern that the intention of the producers should not be misunderstood had led the Meat Board to give assurances to the Government. He quoted from a letter to the Government, written by the chairman of the board (Mr J. D. Ormond) in which Mr Ormond explained that it was not now, nor in the future, the intention of the board to establish anything in the nature of a meat marketing commission. Mr Ormond also reaffirmed an earlier assurance that the board adhered to the principle of private trading in the meat export industry. It was not the intention of the board to become a trader, nor was it intended that the board itself would take an active part in tr .ding as a result of its being enabled financially to assist companies trading in New Zealand meat. Assurance to Farmers Mr Taiboys said the Government had given an assurance to the freezing companies that when a specific proposal was made by the Meat Board to exercise the powers conferred on it by the bill, the proposal would be discussed with the freezing companies. “The last thing one wants to see as a result of the conferring of these powers is the upsetting of the marketing process,” he said. Mr Nordmeyer said the Opposition would not oppose the measure. “It is a desirable extension of the 1959 act,” he said. “I agree that it is desirable if there is among the farming producers uncertainty about getting a fair deal. A great deal will depend on the way the new powers given to the board are exercised.”