PROPOSED MEAT MERGER.

Otago Witness, Issue 3672, 29 July 1924, Page 16

PROPOSED MEAT MERGER.

FARMERS’ UNION DISCUSSION. WELLINGTON, July 22. A protest against the proposed merger of the freezing interests in New Zealand was raised by Mr VV. G. Leadley (Ashburton) at the Dominion Farmers’ Conference tonight,. when he moved—“ That this conference is strongly opposed to any monopoly in connection with the frozen meat industry and urges the dominion executive carefully to watch developments in regard to the proposed merger ot freezing works.” the proposal, he said, was that these works should be taken over by one big combination at a cost of about £7.500,000, and that various derelict works should be tairen over too. The object, it was staled, was to reduce the freezing charges but he did not see how this could be done if farmers were to be loaded with the cost of the derelict works. It was further proposed to get legislative authority to prevent any further freezing works being started in New Zealand. This, he believed, was not a good thing. The President said that ho agreed that it might not altogether be desirable to have a monopoly in tne freezing industry, but it was better to have a monopoly of New Zealand farmers than a monopoly by foreigners, which was where things were tending at the present time. He believed that with a little amendment the scheme could be made so attractive that it would be irresistible. The present disorganised methods were extravagantly wasteful, and much saving could be effected. They should reaffirm their opposition to overseas trusts and monopolies, but the only way of combating them seemed to be for them to effectually combine. To keep them out the existing works should be taken over, not at what they cost to build them, but at their value to the produces. Mr G. P. Johnston (Southland) objected to, the merger proposal, saying that he objected to all monopolies and combines because he felt that if the thing were allowed to materialise it would soon pass out of the control of the farmers altogether. Mr G. L. Marshall (Marton) said that a great many of the farmers’ companies were now only barely Carrying on. In their present weakened condition they were an easy prey for outside combines. He moved as an amendment—“ That the conference endorse the principle of the combination of the freezing interests in New Zealand.” Mr Poison moved a* a further amendment —“That the conference, while considering that some form of freezing consolidation is necessary, suspends its iudgment on the question of the present merger until it has heard further details; further, that if some form of combine is necessary, it prefers a combine of New Zealand farmers to an outside combine. It also again places on record its opposition to any overseas interests owning or operating freezing companies in New Zealand.’ Mr Garton (Maugonui) said that the merger was apparently being fathered by the managers and directors of various works concerned, and they, being free agents would do what they thought suited them best, no matter what the Farmers Union did or thought. The scheme could not come into effect without the consent of the shareholders in the companies concerned, and that would be the controlling and prohibiting factor on any such action. Mr R. S. Chadwick (Dannevirke) said that the whole object of the scheme was to secure cheaper freezing charges. There was a lot of talk about trusts and combines, but it had to be recognised that this was an age of combines. Everyone was organised except the producers, and it was time that they too took a step in that direction. Tile producers had two alternatives before them —either the control their owqn combine or submit to a c<vpbino which they did not control. He might tell them that it would be very much easier to organise a combine on a proprietary basis than on a co-operative one. but they wanted the farmers to control their own industry. The crucial question was valuation. ' The derelict works in the country had rendered very valuable service during the war. It it was not suggested that the works should lie taken over at cost price, but that, they should be valued on the turnover which constituted the commercial value of the works. The mid-Canterbury delegate agreed to withdraw the remit, and the amendment was carried.