EXPORT MEAT LEVY

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 221, 1 September 1932, Page 9

EXPORT MEAT LEVY

ABOLITION NOT FAVOURED H.B. DELEGATES’ ATTITUDE OBJECTS OF BOARD’S RESERVES Wellington, Aug. 31. The abolition of this year’s meat export levy, which was suggested at the annual meeting of tho electoral committee of the Meat Producers’ Board, was viewed with disfavour by the majority of delegates present. The general view was that, even were the levy not collected for the present season, the saving to the farmer woul'd be so small as to be of little practical value.

Mr H. J. Stace (Blenheim), after referring to the accumulated funds of the board, said that the farmers of his district felt that any reduction that could be made in the levy would be of benefit to the producers. Some felt that the levy could be cut by half. The income of the board was £60,000 in excess of its expenditure. Mr A. V. S. Reed (Napier) moved that for this year the levy be entirely wiped out. He felt that the board had very much to do to justify its existence. The policy at times had not been in accord with the wishes of sheepfarmers. MR J. H. JOLL’S VIEWS, The motion was seconded by Mr J. H. Joll (Havelock North), who said that the £36,000 collected fast year by way of the levy on meat exported would go somewhere among farmers if it ivere divided among them. The object of the building-up of reserves was to have funds to draw upon when necessary. “It that time is not here to-day,” said Mr Joll, “I do not know when it will be.” The opinion was expressed by Mr L. R. C. Macfarlane (Culverdcn) that it would be a short-sighted policy to cramp the board financially. The board’s attitude toward the levy was explained by the acting-chairman of the board (Mr Duncan). He pointed out that when last year’s reduction had been made the board had considered the question of still further reducing the levy. INCREASED PRODUCTION. There was likely to be an increase in production, and it was felt that the board should do everything possible to extend the market. The board considered that it had gone as far as .possible in reducing the levy. Mr James Begg (Dunedin) was opposed to the abolition of the levy. The amount shown as reserve looked substantial on paper, but £39,000 was tied up in land in London. "Property in London,” said Mr Begg, “has suffered in the same way as property in New Zealand has.” The motion was lost on voices.