KILLING OF STOCK

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21935, 19 October 1934, Page 14

KILLING OF STOCK

MEAT INDUSTRY SLAUGHTERING BILL PASSED PRODUCERS AND COMPANIES SATISFACTION EXPRESSED [RY TELEGRAPH —PRESS ASSOCIATION] WELLINGTON, Thursday The motion for the committal of the Slaughtering und Inspection Amendment Bill was debated in the House of Representatives to-day. The bill provides for control over the erection of new slaughterhouses and requires works to accept all stock offered by producers for slaughter and export. Mr. F. Langstone (Labour —Waimarino) said the fears of farmers and private freezing works were that tho large overseas concerns which controlled works in New Zealand and also wholesale and retail business in Britain placed them at a great disadvantage. Lf that were so, it would be better for the small works to sell out to the large concerns. A large concern would be able to pay a little more than small works for stocks and they could then regulate the market in Britain accordingly. He said the profit made by Armours, Vesteya and Wilsons in Britain had been phenomenal. Tho Government should be very watchful indeed of foreign interests operating in the Dominion. Protecting the Producer Mr. W. J. Poison (Government — Stratford) thought the bill would protect the producer more than he was protected at present. He could not understand the objection of the Meat Board to the legislation. There seemed to be apprehension on the part of the board that its operations would be affected. He claimed that the operations of the board resulted in the retrenchment of proprietary firms and the small co-operative works had almost gone. He considered there was not sufficient competition in the meat business at present. Meat interests were speculators and wanted to make a profit not only on the purchase of meat, but also on the freezing of it. He thought Armours had done a service to New Zealand in refusing to be bound to tho maximum price it would pay for meat. He contended there should be only one price for freezing, instead of half-a-dozen prices. He thought the Meat Board was anxious to do the best for the industry, but he considered it had adopted a mistaken policy. Mr. H. G. Dickie (Government — Patea) said the bill affected £11,000,000 worth of produce. It gave the Meat Board very wide power, and it might react against the producer. If they limited the number of killings, certain people might put their heads together and limit the price. "A Half-way Measure" The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. M. J. Savage, said the bill was an improvement, but was only a half-way measure. He thought the time was not far distant when freezing apparatus would be a State monopoly. He agreed that the Government should be masters of the situation. ' The Hon. A. D. McLeod (Government—Wairarapa) said the Meat Board was to be complimented on tho way it had held out for quality. The failure of farmers' companies in many cases was due to the farmers themselves. Mr. A. Stuart (Government —Rangitikei) thought the Meat Board had allowed meat to go out of the country that should never have been sent away. Nothing but the very best should bo sent to Britain. The Hon. C. E. Macmillan, Minister of Agriculture, in reply, said that locally-owned freezing companies were quite satisfied with the bill, as their interests were protected. It was known that charges for freezing were high, but they were fixed by the amount if stock going through tho works. He thought the bill would be favourably received by both the producers and freezing companies. The motion for committal was carried and the bill was put through committee without amendment, read a third time and passed.