FREEZING COMPANIES.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIV, Issue 1075, 23 July 1924, Page 5

FREEZING COMPANIES.

THE PROPOSED AIERGER

FARMERS’ UNION DISCUSSION

Per Press Association. WELLINGTON. July 22.

A protest against the proposed merger of freezing interests in Now Zealand was voiced by Mr \V. G. Leadley (Ashburton) at the Farmers’ Union Dominion Cbnference to-night, when he moved “That this conference is strongly opposed to any monopoly in connection with the frozen meat industry, and urges tho Dominion executive to carefully watch developments in regard to tho proposed merger ot freezing works.” The proposal, lie said, was that these works should be taken over by one big combination at a cost of about millions, and that various derelict works should be taken over, too. The object, it was stated, was to reduce freezing charges, but he did not see how this could be done if fanners were to be loaded with the cost of the derelict works. It was further pro!>osed to get- legislative authority to prevent any further freezing works being started in New Zealand. This, lie believed, was not a good thing. The president said that lie agreed that it might not altogether be desirable to have, a monopoly in the freezing industry, but it was better to have a monopoly of New Zealand farmers than a monopoly by foreigners, which was where things were tending at the present- time, lie believed that, with a little amendment, ihe scheme could be niado so attractive that it would he irresistible. The present waste through disorganised and competing methods was extravagantly wasteful, and much saving could be effected. They should reaffirm their opposition to overseas trusts and monopolies, but the only way of combating them seemed to be to themselves effectually coinbifio to keep them out. The existing works should lie taken over, not at what they cost- to build them but at their value to the producers. Mr G. P. Johnston (Southland) objected to the merger proposal, saying that he objected to all inonc«>lies and combines because he felt that W things were allowed to materialise it would soon pass out of tho control of the farmers altogether. Air G. L. Marshall (Marton) said that a groat many of the farmers’ companies were now only " barely carrying on, and in their present weakened condition they wore an easy prey for outside combines. lie moved as an amendment that the conference endorse the principle of the combination of freezing interests in New Zealand. Mr Poison moved as a further amendment “that the conference, while considering that some form of freezing consolidation is neecssar}*, suspend judgment on the question of the present merger until it has heard further details; further, that if some form of combine is necessary, it prefers a combine of New Zealand farmers to an outside combine. It also again places on record its opposition to any overseas interests owning or operating freezing companies in New Zealand.” Air Gnrton (Mangomii) said that the merger was apparently being fathered by the managers and directors of the various works concerned, and they, being free agents, would do what they thought suited them beat, no matter what tho Farmers’ Union did or thought. The schemo could not come into effect without the consent of the shareholders in the companies concerned, and that would be a controlling and inhibiting factor on any rash action.

Mr R. S. Chadwick (Dannevirke) said that the whole object of the scheme was to cheapen freezing charges. There was a lot of talk about trusts and combines, but it had to be recognised that this was an age of combines. Everyone was organised except the producers, and it was time that they, too, took the step. The producers had two alternatives before them, either control their own combine or submit to a combino which they did not control. He might tell them that it would he very much easier to organise a combine on a proprietary basis than on a cooperative one, but they wanted farmers to control their own industry. The crucial question was valuation. The derelict works in the country now had rendered very valuable service during the war. It was not suggested that the works should be taken ovor at cost price, but that they should be valued on turnover, which constituted the commercial value of the works. The mid-Canterbury delegates agreed to withdraw their remit, and the amendment was carried.