Meat producers ‘shocked and confused’

Press, 20 February 1986, Page 18

Meat producers ‘shocked and confused’

PA Wellington Meat producers are shocked and confused by the disastrous returns for their meat, according to the chairman of Federated Farmers’ meat and wool section, Mr Bruce Anderson. They were confused because changes in the price schedule gave no indication of market returns and requirements, he said in Wellington yesterday. Because there was no explanation for the changes, farmers found it impossible to plan for the best returns. Mr Anderson told the meat and wool section council that exporting companies had clearly said that the schedules would reflect market requirements and returns. “Until now, because of those unpredictable and unexplained changes they have not generated any confidence in farmers of their ability to in fact do this,” he said. Mr Anderson said he was personally disappointed the Meat Board gave up the control of meat marketing earlier than many thought was desirable. But there was a lack of unanimity among farmers over the issue. Many did not know what they wanted. On industrial action in the freezing industry, Mr Anderson said it seemed the Meat Industry Association intended to stand united and firm on its wage offers. Farmers

welcomed this attitude. “I have also indicated to the M.I.A. that it could count on strong backing from farmers even in a prolonged stoppage,” Mr Anderson said. “Any wage settlement reached must be absorbed by the companies and not passed on through killing and processing charges.” The Government should make appropriate arrangements to rob the grave of farming if it needs more tax and not “bludgeon to death those who, perhaps foolishly, continue to live in hope,” the Wool Board’s chairman, Mr Doug Mcllraith, told the meat and wool council. He is the latest in a growing line of agricul-ture-associated leaders to question the Government’s motives on the proposed livestock taxation changes. The Wool Board supported Federated Farmers’ call to make next month’s change apply only to farmers’ future investment decisions and not be allowed to "claw back” concessions given, and taken, under the old rules and market conditions. He said the Government was asking for half the investment allowances and accelerated depreciation given to all industry to be repaid just by farming. It was active discrimination at a time when farmers were still waiting for the Government to honour its assurances that it would “spread the pain” across all economy sectors. “Unlike the manufacturing sector, the farmer is being asked to pay tax on income before it is even earned — and repay more than the original concession in many instances,” Mr Mcllraith said. Farmers could accept the sense of a Government’s wanting to make sure that investment decisions throughout the economy were based on market realities. But they would not understand how the Gov-

ernment could claim the change was not a revenue earner. “If the Government is sincere in its assurances that this is not a revenuecollecting exercise, transition must be made without extra taxation of continuing enterprises,” Mr Mcllraith said. He said tax should also be deferred until stock was sold. Building up permanent flock numbers was the only case where the Government could expect finance by borrowing, he said. “Capital is one thing, income another. “Sheepfarmers without sheep make money like a landlord without buildings. “A tax on an increase in money values of buildings in Lambton Quay would be seen clearly as a capital tax. It would bring business to a halt. Why is farming so different? “Courts don’t take kindly to burglars who plead that they only took half their victim’s property. When the Government makes the same plea, it is labelled by it as ‘generous treatment’," Mr Mcllraith said.