MEAT PRODUCERS’ BOARD.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19000, 24 October 1923, Page 8

MEAT PRODUCERS’ BOARD.

AN APPRECIATION. “FINANCIAL TIMES” IN SUPPORT. A LESSON FOR THE HOME COUNTRY. (From Dim Own Coiwiespondent.) LONDON, August, 80. It will be a considerable aalisiaction to supporters of the rvew Zealana Meat Producers’ Board to learn that the I* inanciai Times secs in tlic example set oy tne producers in the dominion something to be iollowed in this country. " After me disclosures made last weeit by the Ueparlmenlul Committee on Agricultural Broduce of the way the farmer and consumer are exploited by the middleman,” says the writer oi the leading article, ' tho first report of tne New Zealand Meat Broducers’ Board comes as a cheerful reminder that there need be no difficulty in remedying the worst of the evils under winch we suffer. The position here and in the dominion is not entirely the same, but it would be quite easy to adapt legislation to meet the cucumstances oi our own case.”

Tins irom an influential journal which was one of the most strenuous opponents of the pool is encouraging. On Feoruary 2, 1922, tue Financial T imes printed a paragraph, in ito editorial columns, under the heading ol ” New Zealand Folly.” On February 3, 1922 the same journal opened its columns to a correspondent who was permitted to say a great many hard things concerning the scheme. " The colonial merchants in London describe Mr Massey’s statement as being so much 'eyewash' caoied to London tor the delectation and consumption of lire British public,” is one of tire statements in this article. There was a great deal of misunderstanding in those early days, but obviously the board has justified itself when its worn can bring about such a radical change in tho opinions ot the leading financial journal of Great Britain.

Referring to the wasteful and inefficient conditions that the producer suffers trom in this country, the writer of the leading article this week goes on to say: “Much of this might be remedied by better co-operation between farmers themselves, but experience has shown us that life is much too short to wait for voluntary effort to bring this about. A reform of the distributing system can only be effected by some overhead authority with considerable general powers. This was what happened in New Zealand, though the problem there was chiefly the reorganisation of the export market, and the chief aim is not merely to enable, but to oblige the farmer to get his stuff shipped expeditiously, cheaply, and in the manner best calculated to secure the support of the overseas purchaser. Not much imagination is needed to adapt such a policy here and to combine with it proper protection for the consumer.” PERMISSIVE POWERS FUTILE. The article outlines the work accomplished by the board, and quotes from- the report: “The board would emphasise that much which has so iar been achieved could not have been accomplished without the existence of the compulsory clauses of the statute.”

“The statement in the last sentence is worth noting,” the article proceeds. ‘lt affords further proof, if any were needed, that in schemes of this kind permissive powers are futile and useless. When a particular line of action is found to be necessary for the general good oi a trade it must be enforceable on the recalcitrant members, who otherwieo by negligence or selfishness would largely neutralise ite effects by insisting on going their own way. Before the board was constituted there was such a multiplicity of marks and lots that one vessel with 145,000 carcases had 217 bills of lading and 915 different marks and numbers. Now the minimum parcel is 300 carcases, which enormously facilitates shipment and delivery, and ensures much better condition, (formerly nearly every producer and shipper had ms own description of grades; now there is only one mark for every grade. These are very proper matters on which the active and intelligent members of an industry-through a representative authority—can fairly demand that the slack and selfish members shall be required to adhere to a common policy for the general good, not merely of the trade but of the community.

SCIENTIFIC METHODS. “We can faintly picture what a board of this kind would do for the agricultural industry in this country it constituted to equitably balance the interests of producer and consumer. One has only to tho summary of conclusions « tho mental Committee’s report to see what economies could be effected in distribution to the benefit of both the farmer and the puWic, and what tbe wider diffusion of knowledge and the more general adoption of scientmc methods could achieve in the better carrying £ ■mrhaatrv Tho New Zealand Board has for one tling greatly increased tlm competitive power of the dominion producers we though unluckily it can to only a any *of the" advantages artffiic and at a fair price, -and that the farmer also secures an adequate ictun . A POINT NOT CLEAR. The Daily Telegraph, too, finds in the repoit some interesting references to marine insurance, chiefly the hat un claims have been made and that surveys have been called which were not justified The marine insurance correspondent, who is dealm-e with the report, comments : • it is“ known that tho board ha* been investigating the conditions on winch frozen meat is insured for some time, and that it has done much that is of great assistance to underwriters. Because of this it is somewhat surprising to read that the board in its determination to put a step to the abusesdo which reference is made will, if necessaiy, take over the whole of the insurance on frozen meat exported from New Zealand. It is not quite clear what the board means by this project. If it is that they will charge a premium and pay claims in the usual manner, it is incredible that they have any real appreciation of the task which they propose to undertake. If, on the other hanu. they only propose to supervise the placing of insurances, which would continue in their usual channel, there may be someinmg to be said for the scheme. In any case, underwriters would need to be much more fully informed than they are at present before they would take any steps towards active cooperation. They appreciate the good work that the Moat Producers Board has done in the past, and perhaps they will admit, the justice of the claim that the board’s actions and inquiries have had an important bearing on the reduction in rates vvnich nas taken place in recent years; but while they naturally cannot countenance any attempt at monopoly in the matter of underwriting, they would equally resent any form of supervision which would do away with the complete freedom which they at present enjoy in tbe matter of underwriting risks on frozen meat. It must be remembered that if unjust claims have been made underwriters have developed frozen meat insurance on such generous lines that hardly any mishap to which this interest is liable falls outside the cover given by ibo clauses at present in use.”