Criticism stings meat exporters

Press, 23 September 1983, Page 8

Criticism stings meat exporters

PA Wellington Meat exporters are victims of an orchestrated campaign to belittle their achievements in the last 100 years, but they cannot afford not to co-operate with their critics, according to the Meat Exporters’ Council chairman, Mr Eric Cammell.

Exporters had been stung by attacks on their competence and faced a producer take-over, against which it could be said they had not fought hard enough for the free-enterprise system, Mr Cammell said in his report to yesterday’s annual council meeting.

“We have had to face what in retrospect seems like a very well-orches-trated and deliberate campaign not only to belittle the efforts and achievements of exporters over the previous century, but also to have us adjudged as incapable of doing the job in the future,” he said.

Exporters needed to take clear stock of their position on producer control as it was expressed by the Meat Producers’ Board and later assumed by the Meat Industry Task Force report, or they would have no future in the industry at all. With less than a fortnight to present some kind of alternative or even solid opposition to board control of the industry, the private

meat exporters industry had its work cut out to combat the task force proposals, Mr Cammell said.

The exporters have had a warning from the Minister of Agriculture, Mr MacIntyre, who commissioned the task force investigation not to dwell on mere opposition to the task force recommendations.

“I do not expect you to submerge your individual interests, but can I make the point that they will carry more weight if they are clear, constructive, unanimous and have equal regard for New Zealand’s interests,” said Mr MacIntyre. Mr Cammell said that last October’s assumption of control of sheepmeat exports by the board was theoretically for two seasons, but that the board had not kept its commitment to return to private control, or even to the joint private-producer controlled systems proposed and agreed by both parties before control fell to the board.

Exporters could, however, not afford to refuse to participate in the industry structure proposed by the task force if it was accepted by the Government, said Mr Cammpll. This would include involvement with a suggested meat industry advisory council.

“We cannot see that an advisory body can be of much use if the Meat Board does as it did with the Joint Meat Council, and decided not to make sure that it doesn’t work. “I think the J.M.C. was a great example of orchestration,” said Mr Campbell.

The Meat Board has rejected as “completely false” Mr Cammell’s accusations.

The deputy chairman of the board, Mr Norman Mcßae, said both parties made a genuine attempt to make the joint council work. “There was complete agreement that for a period of up to two years the board should take control of meat marketing." He said it was clear many people, including farmers and meat exporters, did not appreciate the serious position facing sheepmeat. “If it were not for Government S.M.P.s, the producer would have received for his PM grade lamb less than 90c a kilogram, instead of the 146 c paid out under the S.M.P. schemes.” Mr McCrae said lamb faced fundamental problems in meat markets and would never be able to compete against poultry in terms of price. “We have no choice but to move lamb upmarket and generally improve its image.”