MEAT POOL ACCOUNT

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 80, 4 August 1945, Page 5

MEAT POOL ACCOUNT

STABILISATION SUBSIDY DISCUSSION IN THE HOUSE (From Our Parliamentary Reporter) 0 - Wellington, August 3. The liability of the Meat Pool Account for a sum not more than £400,900 as a subsidy towards the stabilisation of meat prices within New Zealand was again discussed in the House of Representatives when'the Stabilisation Regulations were being considered. Mr W. A. Sheat (National, Patea) said that the annual report of the Meat Producers’ Board contained details of the arrangement made when the jpeat purchase schedule for the season was under discussion between the Board and the Government. It was stated in the report that the board objected strongly to the proposal that the Meat Pool Account should be used to subsidise local meat prices under the stabilisation scheme, but that the board was forced to agree to that, as a condition of acceptance of the purchasing schedule. It was contended by Mr Sheat that the Government held a pistol at the head of the Meat Board, demanding that the Meat Pool Account should be charged up to £400,000. ‘‘lf that is part of the price we are paying for stabilisation, that we are to have deals which amount to nothing but legalised burglary,” declared Mr Sheat, “then we have reached a sorry state of affairs in handling the farmer’s business. It is not stabilisation, but legalised robbery.” The Minister of Supply and Munitions (Mr Sullivan) defended the subsidy system, which ha said he had discussed with eminent authorities in Britain and Canada. They approved that method of stabilising prices and he could confidently assert that no country had done a better job in that respect than New Zealand. The Minister added that he was not personally concerned in the meat negotiations, but he knew that the stabilisation regulations had been discussed with both the Farmers’ Fedeworkers, and that they were acceptable to both interests. It was a disturbing feature that when there were agreements with the farmers’ organisation in regard to wheat, dairy products, meat and other things, and definite understandings reached, unfair criticisms were made in the House, and suggestions put forward that something was being put across the farmer. Mr Sheat: The Meat Board report says that. The Minister suggested that Mr Sheat was possibly putting his own construction on the board’s report, which he (the Minister) had not seen. He could not understand how they could be forced to accept any proposal. There had been arguments and compromises in that class of discussion, bupt he had never, known force to be exercised.