Task force pool plan rejected

Press, 24 September 1983, Page 3

Task force pool plan rejected

Farm editor Most North Canterbury sheepmeats producers are unhappy with the national, pool section of the recommendations of the Task Force on the Meat Industry. At a meeting of the meat and wool section executive of Federated Farmers, and a subsequent larger gathering of farmers yesterday, speakers expressed reservations about the pool proposal in the sheepmeats marketing reforms suggested by the Task Force. Most delegates to a wellattended meat and wool executive meeting in the morning said that their members agreed with the direction of the recommendations, but were unhappy with the national pool concept. Most farmers believed private enterprise should be given the maximum opportunity to operate so that the industry derived the benefit from exporters’ entrepreneurial skills. But most also accepted a need for more discipline among exporters. More than 150 farmers and meat industry representatives at a public meeting in the Wool Exchange in the afternoon passed a motion against a national pool.

The chairman of the North Canterbury meat and wool section, Mr R. W. Davison, said he was now well informed on what farmers did not want in a sheepmeats marketing scheme. It was less clear what the majority did want.

Mr Davison and his deputy, Mr K. J. Coe, will attend a Dominion meat and wool council meeting in Wellington later this month to decide on Federated Farmers’ official reaction to the Task Force. The Minister of Agriculture, Mr MacIntyre, has asked for comment on the recommendations by October 3.

A series of smaller meetings of North Canterbury farmers in the last two weeks, culminated in the large public meeting yesterday. It heard from Mr M. R. Barnett and Mr J. Bremner of the Meat Board; Mr J. J. Drayton of Canterbury Frozen Meat, Ltd; Mr J. Ryan, of Waitaki N.Z. Refrigerating, Ltd, and Mr J. W. Hartnell, an independent meat exporter.

Mr Davison told both meetings that his assessment of farmers’ reactions was that marketing was not the industry’s main problem. The terms of reference of the Task Force were too narrow, and the real difficulties facing meat producers were rapidly rising costs and a diminishing share of the consumer price. “The pressure to make a decision on long-term structural changes by October was seen by many as indecent haste; an artificial deadline imposed by political considerations,” he said.

“There is general agreement on the need for more discipline and increased control and to this extent the Task Force recommendations are accepted.

“But there is a reluctance to set up a structure that imposes a layer of paid administrators between fanners and exporters and exporters and their customers,” said Mr Davison. “Many fanners hold the view that if we set up a centralised producer-con-trolled structure with the best intentions, this may allow a Government takeover of this organisation in future.”

The meat and wool executive passed a motion which read: “That this executive express disappointment at the lack of discipline in meat marketing and the apparent failure of the Joint Meat Council and suggest that the Meat Exporters Council and the Meat Board work to provide a disciplined approach. Further this executive renews its support for producer control.” Among other opinions to find support were the benefits of a broadly representative Meat Industry Council as an advisory body to the Meat Board.

Mr Barnett spoke out strongly against such a council being directly responsible to the Minister of Agriculture. He thought that that was inviting Government control in the industry.

Mr Ryan had proposed a Meat Industry Council which would include representatives from the Meat Board, freezing companies, meat exporters, marketers, animal scientists, meat researchers and meat unions. Mr Barnett likened such a council to the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, which could not come to decisions.

A past chairman of the Meat Board, Sir Charles Hilgendorf, also likened it to the Tower of Babel.

Two other meat industry representatives, Mr Drayton and Mr Hartnell, said they could agree with a Meat Industry Council proposal. Mr Drayton said its primary function should be to find the most efficient marketing and distribution system and find a place for private enterprise. There was also general

agreement with a statement by Mr B. H. Palmer, of Amberley, that 25 per cent of meat and wool farmers in North Canterbury were on their knees.

“Take away S.M.P.S and 60 per cent would be on their knees and take away meat stabilisation and 100 per cent would be down,” he said.

The Manawatu and Nelson branches of Federated Farmers have voted overwhelmingly in favour of the Meat Industry Task Force recommendations.

A meeting of the meat and wool branch of Manawatu Federated Farmers in Levin on Thursday voted 39 to 1 to endorse the principle of Meat Board purchase of sheepmeat. In Nelson, delegates from the meat and wool, dairy and agriculture sections of Nelson Federated Farmers voted 19-4 in support of a national pool of export lamb and mutton carcases.