THE VESTEY PURCHASE

New Zealand Times, Volume L, Issue 11659, 25 October 1923, Page 2

THE VESTEY PURCHASE

FARMERS’ ATTITUDE POSITION OF THE MEAT BOARD DISCUSSED. “A DISTINCT DEPARTURE. ’ 5 The recent proposal of the sale of a Poverty Bay freezing works to Vestey’s was discussed by the Dominion executive of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union last night. Mr Poison said the question was one on which the union had very definitely made up its mind. iHe read the following resolution passed at a Dominion conjure nee of the union two years ago:— "That in the opinion of this conference the Government should take immediate and effective steps to absolutely stop the trust and big combines from directly or indirectly buying or controlling any freezing works in New Zealand, or operating in any way with our produce, and in particular to stop Armour and 1 Company and Vestey Bros., and the latter’s various organisations from operating in New Zealand in any manner howsoever in connection with our freezing industry. ’ A DIFFICULT POSITION. The position, said Mr Poison, was a difficult one, as the works which Vestey’s were seeking to purchase were hopelessly bankrupt. He realised also the National Bank had been longsuffering and patient with the shareholders in the district. He further realised that with the Meat Board in control the danger would almost cease to exist, -but he considered that it had been shown that the board had not complete control. Under the circumstances ho had felt it his business to urge that the attitude- of' the union should be brought under notice. He thought the Meat Board must lay down a sound, conaistent policy. They had not yet said wliat their:policy was to be in connection with meat. They had not said whether they were going to take control or allow present conditions to continue. At present Armour’s and others were working harmoniously with the board, and if the board would exercise the necessary vigilance it might be all right, especially at present when prices were right and no disturbance was wanted. At the same time it would not be well to let up and not see that due control was acted on. He read the following letter written by one of Vestey’s representatives in New Zealand to the gfufful manager of the National Bank of New Zealand:—-“It looks as if an effort is being made to misrepresent the way in which we conduct the freezing works which, we operate . in New Zealand. All three works, Westfield, Tomoana, and Taruheru, are open at all times both to farmers and exporters for the killing and freezing of stock at the current rates ruling in each district. Space is allocated as fairly a& possible from time to time between the various interetir-s 'which use the works, and we have not for a Jong time had a shadow of complaint as to our treatment of clients killing on their own account either in the matter of handling of the stock or -the allocation of killing dates .and space. Had we secured the Waipaoa works in place of Taruheru, it was our intention to carry on just, .the same procedure at Waipaoa as has been the Practice at Taruheru. We shall be glad if you +ir any opportunity of denying the charge that we have any intention c the killing space at any of the works at any time. We would prefer to have the works kept operating by commission business rather than to have to buy the bulk of the meat on the hoof to ensure their operating at a remunerative volume.” Mr Poison added that at the same time there was a great deal of feeling among farmers’ organisations, and communications he Had received pointed to the fact that they were still alive to the danger of trusts. The principle as laid down was that Vestey’s should not be allowed to increase their holding. THE MEAT BOARD’S PART. Mr R. D. Duxfield mowed: “That in the opinion of this executive, in the event of Vestey Brothers being allowed to acquire the works of the Poverty Bay Meat Companv it will be a distinct departure from the policy laid down by tlus organisation.” Mr R. Dunn seconded. Mr Joll moved that the resolution formerly passed by the; union (quoted above,) should be reaffirmed. This was not seconded. Referring to the Meat Board’s part m the matter. Mr JoU said the board had set out like a Goliath, hut had finished up just tho reverse. Hr M • B. Matheson said he believed the Meat Board to consist of picked men, who were thoroughly to be trusted.

Mr G L. Marshall thought the Meat Board deserved the sympathy of the farming community and the country. He was not prepared to back up the rel pudiation of a debt- to oho of the brinks. In many cases tho banks had been liberal with credit, and this was the return they .got. He was not prepared to say the Meat Board had not acted wisely.

Mr G. Anderson expressed the opinion that if the Meat Bos«3 was going to do any useful work it must justify itself, and it could not do that if it jettisoned prinoinle at the first appearance of trouble.

THE BOARD DEPENDED. Mr R. Arnott doubted if the Meat Board ii-ad tho power to stop the sale of the works to Vestey’s. Air D. Cameron thought the farmers of the district should get the money to buy the works and keep Vesrtoy’e out. Mr A. E. Harding, a member of the Meat Board, said that the only consideration or the board had been the welfare of the producers of New Zealand. There had been no Government interference with the hoard.

Mr Poison: As a matter of fact tho Government has Riven its consent to tho purchase by Vestcvs.

Mr A. E. Harding remarked that the board could not prevent the issue of the license. It had been said the board did not control, but the fact was the hoard had controlled, and if Vesteys did not obey the mandate of the board tho board .would take their meat from them when it was frozen. If the works had been put up for sale would they have brought ,£50,000? Here thev were offered £225,000, which was more than they were valued at on Mr Lysnar’s books. The board had done the right thing, and Vesteys’s knew they had to do what tho hoard said. The board was not going to allow any trust to take charge in New Zealand, and it was going to work in the beet interests of the producers in New Zealand. A THORNY QUESTION.

-Mr G. W. Lcadloy thought it would he a fatal blunder to allow it to go forth that the union was in sympathy with repudiation of a debt. Mr Harding said an important point wan that if the bank conoerned in this case were prevented from getting the money owing to it the effect would have been disastrous to the freezing works

throughout the country, as the banka would tighten up. The effect in London also would be bad. Mr A. Rosa considered the question a very thorny one, particularly the aspect touching the position of the bank. Had the bank been compelled to take a small sum for the works the effect throughout New Zealand would be bad. However, he thought if the trusts were allowed in to any extent they wore going to be difficult to control. Mr Duxfield deprecated the argument respecting the banks; the banks could not do without the business of the farmere Armour’s were not tho menace Vcstev’fi were. Vestey’e were trying to close up the farmer?-’ works. . , Mr Duxfield’e motion was carried.