MEAT RESTRICTIONS

Dominion, Volume 34, Issue 157, 29 March 1941, Page 13

MEAT RESTRICTIONS

Recommendations Said To Have Been Ignored MR. MULHOLLAND’S VIEW “The report of the committee of the Meat Conference which was given to Parliament by Mr. Barclay on March 25, was only that, part of the report which dealt with the remainder of the present season, and did not contain any of the committee’s recommendations in regard to the season now rapidly approaching,” states a report on the meat position prepared by Mr. W. W. Mulholland, Dominion president of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union, and read to this week’s meeting of the MakaraHutt provincial executive of the Farmers’ Union by Mr. A. P. O’Shea. Mr. Mulholland held that the action taken by the Government in the matter was tantamount to destroying meat for human consumption, and that Ministerial statements gave the impression that the Government was anxious to avoid criticism. “It will be Seen by a study of the report that the Government’s action did not conform to that recommended by the report. The basis of the report was that there should be no stoppage of killing, but that it should proceed in the normal way. The committee’s recommendation was that the classes of meat specified should be killed but not be frozen for export.

“The representative of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union insisted upon recording his reservation that this should apply only insofar as-it was physically possible to deal with the excluded meat in Other ways. The insistence on that reservation indicated the opinion of the majority of the committee that it was possible to continue killing normally with the restrictions as the committee recommended them, and that at no time was it in the mind of the committee that there should be a stoppage in killing at the works. It was recognized that it would be necessary to ration the'work and slow up the killings to some extent to enable the meat to be dealt with in the way recommended instead of iu the normal way. Prohibition of Killing.

“The Government’s complete prohibition of killing at the freezing works of the various classes of meet indicated in its statement published on March 24 is not in accord with the recommendation of the committee. “Mr. Barclay’s statement, however, was most notable for what it did not say. Apparently, after three months of thinking, the Government has not yet arrived at any definite policy. In the meantime, the actions which it *s taking may, or may not, be the right ones, when the main principles of a policy have been determined. . Details are being decided before policy has been defined, and the position is similar to the action of the captain of a ship in a stormy sea who is going ahead with no idea of what port he is making for. ‘‘lt appears obvious from Ministerial statements that the Government is more concerned with avoiding possible criticism in view of the great play that some of its members made at one time with the incident of the destruction of Brazilian coffee. It appears to fear that this might be thrown up to it by its political opponents, if it decided that it was necessary to convert meat into products other than those f° r direct human consumption. I would point out that by forcing farmers to hold stock for which they have no feed they are in many cases actually destroying this meat so far as human consumption is concerned, and much more completely than by taking fhe action recommended by the committee.”