MEAT POOL SCHEME

Evening Post, Volume CIII, Issue 32, 8 February 1922, Page 8

MEAT POOL SCHEME

A COMMERCIAL CRITICISM

WELLINGTON CHAMBER AND THE

PRIME MINISTER.

The following letter on the meat pool has been addressed to the Prime Minister by the secretary (Mr. 11. D. Vickery) on behalf of the Wellington Chamber of Commerce:—

Sir, —The council of the Wellington Chamber of Commerce has discussed the I meat pool proposals, and given careful consideration to the Meat Export Control Bill now before the House. It has directed me respectfully to convey to you its views on the question. It is in connection with the principle involved that my council is mostly concerned. A proposal ■which in effect will sweep away, all existing channels of trade with their multiplied intricacies built on many years of experience is viewed by my council with grave apprehension. On this general aspect of ths ! question my council ".visiles to express its disapproval. The council is of the opinion that any effective scheme which is likely to assist | in improving the conditions under which New Zealand meat is marketed, to the resultant benefit of producers in New Zealand, should have the support and assistance of the commercial community. No objection is being tak««i by my council to any move of a voluntary nature made by the producers. What is objected to is the compulsory and immediate nature of the proposals. It is gathered from the" publicity given to the subject that the Government is determined i» carry out the scheme. With this knowledge before it, my council proceeded »o direct its criticism to one of a constructive nature in the hope that the more serious pitfalls might be avoided. Granted, therefore, that the meat of the country is to be pooled and disposed of as indicated by the Meat Export Control Bill, the salient i features of that Bill might be set ,out as follow: 1. Personnel of Board of Control. 2. The extent of the powers vested in the board. 3. Ambiguity of control—"absolute or limited." , 4. State guarantee. 1. With regard to the first of these: it will be admitted that very much will depend on the personnel of the proposed board. lam directed to emphasise what the country has at stake and the extensive powers to be placed in the hands of this body. It is presumed that these powers will be left in the controlling hands of men drawn from the ranks of fanners. In effect it means the adoption of the unconventional course of asking farmers to . accommodate themselves to what is surely the province of those engaged in the keenest of commercial activities. No more slight can be taken by farmers to this observation than would a commercial man in converse case. My council is of. the opinion that the Board of Control should include, as associates with representatives of producers, commercial men who are thoroughly conversant with the marketing conditions appertaining to the meat trade.

The present scheme provides for the nomination by the Government of two representatives. For reasons given above it is to be hoped that business men of proved ability and knowledge of the trade will be so appointed. There is, however, no evidence of wliat is in the mind of the promoters of the scheme, and there is nothing indicative of the class of men proposed to-be appointed by the Government, i Is the board to consist wholly of producers? 2. Very extensive powers—the exclusive control of the export, sale and distribution of New Zealand meat--arß given to the proposed New Zealand Meat Producers' Board.- My council is of the opinion that a Minister of the Crown, as such, should have more direct control over the proposed board, as it is claimed that the interests.at stake are of national rather than of sectional nature. 3. The Bill states that the control to be exercised by the board may be "absolute or limited" as the board determines. In this lies all the potentialities of the proposed meat pool. What interpretation is to be given to this phrase by th» board? "Absolute control" of the country's products -under a scheme such as is contemplated is regarded by my council with serious misgiving. . ' 4. State Guarantee.—This proposal involves one of Government policy. Intrinsically no State guarantee should bp made available outside of Government control. My council expresses its dis-, approval of any scheme to afrply the tax. payers' credit to the operations of a body elected and installed under the circuit stances proposed in the Bill. By the very nature of things, th» board, if faced with falling values, will hold its stocks. It requires no stretch of imagination under such circumstances, to find the remedy worse than the disease. Accumulated-stocks will have to fac» liquidation, and the guarantee might be placed in jeopardy. The council of the. Wellington Chambei of Commerce appreciates the sincerity of tlie Government in promoting this scheme in the endeavour to improve the conditions under which New Zealand meat_ is marketed, and it offers its criticisms in no captions spirit. It, however, respectfully asks that due consideration be given to the points raised herein before the country is irrevocably committed to such far-reaching »nd drastic economic changes. ' . ,