Joint Lamb Sale Scheme Sought

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31145, 23 August 1966, Page 1

Joint Lamb Sale Scheme Sought

(By the Agricultural Editor of “The Press”) The meat exporters and the Meat 'Board differ over who would control the proposed scheme to divert lamb exports from the United Kingdom to other markets According to the North Island Freezing Companies’ Association, the industry agrees to the scheme being controlled by a joint committee of the meat trade and the board with full responsibility. The board wants such a committee to be advisory only, with the board retaining the ultimate control and power to direct the sale of specified

quantities of lamb to specified markets. Although not attempting to usurp the powers of the Meat Board, with which they have co-operated in preparing the proposals for a lamb marketing diversification plan, the exporters believe that the joint committee should have full responsibility for setting the diversification targets and the size of levies payable by exporters unable to attain the targets. The industry does not believe that the Meat Board needs to seek powers of direction. It thinks a diversionary marketing scheme cannot be rigid in setting targets and levies for specific markets. If a quantity of lamb is directed to a market it is reasonable for the Govern-

ment controlling that market to regard this as outside interference with its right to trade freely and as the imposition of a quota, which traditionally can only be negotiated by governments. Direction of lamb to any market could reduce the prices. If a country’s buyer learned that a quota of 10,000 tons of lamb had been allocated to their market under an inflexible scheme they might take advantage of the knowledge that they did not have to compete because their supply was assured. This would affect the prices they offered. A rigid scheme could penalise companies which had already developed alternative markets. The situation could arise where a company or w ■

companies had developed a market and where the Meat Board, if given the powers it was now demanding, decided that this market should be given an increased lamb allocation. Which companies should be given the right to develop this market? The market could be flooded with offers from companies not previously interested and this could result in a price reduction. Federated Farmers suggested that a diversification scheme involving Meat Board direction was necessary be cause Britain could not absorb all the projected increase in New Zealand lamb production. The industry says this problem has been recognised for some time and last March a

leading exporter said “unpalatable economic pressures may eventually force New Zealand to switch the emphasis of its meat production increases from lamb to beef . . . beef production should be accelerated while at the same time the rate of increase of lamb production should be slowed down.” This view also had the support of producer interests and on-June 15, the former deputy chairman of the Dairy Board, Mr R. A. Candy, was quoted as saying “a levy on lamb to encourage fanners to produce more beef . . . this would not only promote beef, for which there are good markets, but it would avoid a serious slump in lamb values.”