MEAT POOL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18446, 6 January 1922, Page 6

MEAT POOL

REPLY TO MR NOSWORTHY. HIS STATEMENTS CRITICISED. (Fbb United Press Association.) ! ' CHRISTCHURCH, January 5. Jn reply to the Hon. W. Nosworfchy a statement that the only criticism of the i compulsory meat pool, which has so far -come to light, is of a destructive character, and that no one has been able to put forward any suggestions for improvement, or for, any alternative scheme which will afford that protection to producers’ interests which the present day position cle- ' roands, tho Meat Exporters’ Association Bay they knew nothing about tho scheme until they saw it in the newspapers. Representatives immediately went to ■ Wellington and put constructive proposals to the co'mmitteo and members of tho House responsible for the scheme, and made a definite offer to help evolve a workable scheme if invited to do so. They pointed out that inflated land values were re - I sponsible for much of the present trouble; j aJsio,' that the compulsory pool would be i .disastrous in its effects upon the moat pro- ( dueers’ business, and the dominion’s trade r ah' a whole. Further, that all the adI vantages which tho committee anticipated ■ from the compulsory scheme could bo secured by a voluntary pool, and promised ■ their goodwill, if the Government asked • for it in securing: [ L That a New Zealand board or the Goveminent should bo given the right to bar- ’ gain with the whole*, meat freight _ from the dominion, for the purpose of trying to get a lower rate of freight from the shipping companies. 2, That‘it would be easy to formulate a ) schehie for saving the time of refrigerated steamers, by limiting tho number of porta ! at which they should load. \ 3. That a scheme for reducing the multi--1 plicity of small lots by pooling, by volun- !, tary agreement, would not be a difficult S arrangement. , • 4. That a scheme tor securing to such producers os wish to avail themselves of ‘ it, the benefits of a guaranteed minimum | price for their stock, and a liberal advance 1 against it. could be arranged without disi turbance and loss to the whole trade. 5. That meat in the voluntary pool could be protected on the Home market, so far as was humanly possible, by the Govern- ' Bicmt inviting the goodwill of the London meat importers, instead of by antagonising them. : i " ’■TheS© ‘ offers of constructive assistance ' were made before Christmas, and the last 10 days might have been spent in construov tive work had they been accepted. In face of these facts the association says it is not' jpofcsible for the Minister to persist in bis statement.

GOVERNMENT PROPOSAL CRITICISED.

ARMOUR AND CO.’S MANAGER,

' (Pxaf United Pbbs>i Association.! V .; ! . WELLINGTON, January 5. Seme remarks upon the proposal of the Government to establish a meat producers pool to he controlled by the producers them-■'-selves in their own interests were made to a Times representative by Mr W. Irvmp Camay, managing director for Armour and Co. in Australasia, who spoke of thejpro•posal from the point of view in which it , is regarded by the company he represents, j Many producers who signed the Armour ; petition, Oaxney, are asking the ) -question: What has the Government done I aboufc. it? . The answer is, the result is the .meat pool. According to Mr Massey’s own statement before the House, as published in the press on December 20, he said that during the. by the Reform Party on the Armour petition someone had suggested, either himself or a member, that if some- ; thing could be done by pooling, the same as was done under the commandeer, the difficulties regarding Armour’s license •would be overcome. It is a well-known fact that the Imperial Government has been I in cable communication with the New Aea- \ land Government, and has asked it not to J treat Armour and Co. any differently than I’ it did other exporters throughout New Zealand. It really seems to be as if the - producers of Now Zealand are going to be 1 compelled 1 to accept the compulsory meat I pool, instead of the Government granting ;!,Armbur and Co. the license they, are enJ' titled to..' ! STOCK AND STATION AGENTS’ POOL. V • As' far as the meat pool ie concerned, i personally I think that if stock and station L agents, could pool their own clients meat this would undoubtedly he a great help to i the farmers. At the same time, as indicated i by the figures obtained from the Bank of I New Zealand, our meat .to-day is bringing ' prices which compare very favourably with pre-war prices. The only way in which the ' Government, if it is sincere in its desire /'to help the, producers, could possibly be of f 1 any assistance,, as far as I can see, would , be to cut down the freezing charges and ■ the shipping freights. V ONE OF THE BIGGEST TRUSTS. 1 To sum the whole position up, if looks to me aa if the Government, m making a i compulsory pool, is, forming one of the . biggest trusts that has ever been established in New Zealand or any other coun- : ’ trv The whole scheme, so far as pooling i moat is concerned, is absolutely unworkanlo. In conclusion, Mr Carney denied the state-ment-made at Mastertan on Wednesday by Sir Walter Buchanan, that he, Mr Carney, was manager of the so-called Big FjJJ e i" -the frozen- meat industry. Sir Walter certainly does flatter mo, he remarked. V ■ - SOUTHLAND FARMERS FAVOUE- ■ ABLE. , (Per United Press Association.) ■V INVERCARGILL, January 5. *" A well attended meeting of farmers and Others interested was held m, Invercargill ro-day to consider the meat pool proposal. After hearing addressee by Messrs J. ,R. and A- Hamilton, M.P. s, the meeting -adopted a resolution, with four dissentients, supporting the Government a scheme. Delegates were appointed to attend the oonfer--enceat Wellington. LONDON PRESS COMMENT. 7,: *! K VIEWS OF THE TIMES. (From Odb Own Correspondent.) I* CHRISTCHURCH, January 5. Regarding the meat pool, private cable advices have been received in Christehmch, ■ dated (London, January 4, which state: Phe Times city editor to-day states that the 1 possible. benefit of the scheme would be much more than offset by the disadvantages that would result through the break up of taethods' that have served the dominion " rnith individuals "well lot about ball a contury, and goes on to say that while the ' scheme may assist in the solution of certain shipping difficulties those with experience have too lively a recollection of the ill-offecta of government participation in ■trade, to view the proposals with favour.” lb- (Per United Press Association.) r i NELSON, January 5. A large meeting of producers unanimously favaured ‘the formation of the meat pool. Mb R. P. Hudson, member for Motueka, epoke " strongly in. favour of the scheme. 1 Mr George ‘Macmahon was selected to • represent the Nelson producers at the conference next week. f I ’ DISCUSSION© AT NASEBY. i ’ During the visit to Naseby on Wednesday of,the Hon, G. J. Anderson, (Minister of Mines) and Mr J. Eitchoner, M.P. for the . district, the farmers of that locality took advantage of the opportunity of obtaining some information, regarding the proposed' meat pool. There was a large gathering of the farmers, and they were ’ addressed at some length on this important question by Mr Bitchener, and afterwards by the Minister. The fact that Mr Bitchener fa a member of the committee (set up by the Reform Party), which first suggested to the Government the establishment of a meat pool, enabled that gentleman to furnish those present with some interesting particulars on a matter ifchich was of vital importance, to them. At the conclusion the farmers passed a hearty vote of thanks to, bqth the Minister and Mr Sitchener for their, addresses, and expressed satisfaction 'with' the proposals as outlined by the . speakers. t THE POSITION OF NEW ZEALAND AS AN EXPORTING COUNTRY. AUTHORITATIVE FIGURE©. The Hon. W. Nosworthy, Minister ol ■ Agriculture, writes:— Opponents of the proposed meat nool scheme have frequently used the argument thut the quantity of New Zealand moat ■ placed on the London market is so small in proportion to the' total supply that action such as is suggested cannot possibly hope to make itself felt in regard to imr proved methods of marketing. It has been ■ specifically stated in a Christchurch paper / by a gentleman interested in the export trade that "the total supplies of all Now ■ Zealand meat in relation to the consumption

of meat in the United Kingdom is a little over 5 per cent.” Other similar statements have appeared in various parts of the dominion, and they tend to belittle our position as an exporting country in competition with the rest of the worlcl. According to the report of Weddel and Co. for 1920 New Zealand supplied! the United Kingdom in that year with 10.65 per cent, of the total quantity of meat consumed there. The United Kingdom herself produced 56.09 per cent, of her total consumption—a little more than five times as much as New Zealand sent her. New Zealand’s proportion of the total quantity sent to the United Kingdom from abroad was 24.25 per cent. Virtually one-quarter—one-quartar of the outside world’s supply. Those figures relate to all classes of meat —beef, veal, mutton, and lamb. But New Zealand’s speciality is lamb and mutton, particularly lamb, and in tho supply of these classes of meat she is far ahead l of all competitors. _ In 1920 the dominion provided Britain with' practically 48 per cent, of her total importations of mutton and lamb, and 27 per cent, of her total consumption, including her own Home-grown supplies. This is a side of the question which the opponents of the" scheme have not put forward. It can bo seen that the New Zealand output, particularly of lamb, does occupy a commanding position on the market at Home. Incidentally it is a wonderful record for so small a country—small in comparison with its competitors—and with limited a population. r lho figures which Weddel and Co. supply for the yqar 1920 are as follow; Frozen Mutton beef. and lamb. Tons. Tons. Australia ... 41,849 112.894 New Zealand ... 43,549 153,756 Argentine „. 278.861 39,141 Uruguay 37,461 1,608 Brazil 17,068 Patagonia ... 160 9,318 North America 18,291 415 South Africa ... 4,156 Other countries 910 ' 353 Chilled beef. Argentine ... 48.020 Uruguay ... 2,705 Foreign fresh killed ... ._ 162 2,911 . Total importa- e tions into United Kingdom 493,092 320,396 Home-grown (estimated) ... \788,190 250,790 Total consumption 1,281,282 . 671,186