MEAT TRUSTS.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume L, Issue 16570, 28 October 1924, Page 7

MEAT TRUSTS.

MB, BY SNA It’S, COMPLAINTS

A COMMISSION PROMISED

(Parliamentary -Reporter]. " WELLINGTON, this' day. < When the Menl Export Control Hill was read a third time in the House last night, Mr Lysnm* complained that the Government, had forced the Bill through committee in, a thin House, when the supporters of his amendment were away. Though he believed the Goveniment held its forces, he took exception to the Bill coining- up for the third reading on a nig,lit- when it. was usual | to have a .small •attendance. He proceeded to place on record a number of statements malic during the committee discussion on his clause dealing, with trusts. In a. way lie was pleased lie had not proceeded with his amendments, because he had secured a disclosure ot the Government’s attitude. The Meat Board, fey allowing' Yestey Bros, to buy the Poverty Bay works, had. not acted up to its resolution that it would prevent, monopolistic concerns from entering into business in .New Zealand. The Government itself was pledged in the same direction. He had informed the Premier some time ago that he proposed drawing up amendments, and neither Mr Nos worthy nor the Premier took exception, to them, when they were introduced. He did not know the Premier opposed them until a few minutes before they came on in the committee, stage. The Premier had i asked him to send the amendment's to the committee. That suggestion was \ not accepted. “I am not: a public coward,” eon- ' turned Mr Lysnar, ‘‘but if I bad done what the Premier asked me to do I would have been a public- coward. There is a limit to the way in which one can follow party, and i.n this instance 1 contend the limit, was reached. If Mr Massey, has intimated his disapproval, •’* and says I am a very naughty hoy in doing wiliat. was a matter of duty, I cannot help that. I am not. going to quarrel about that. At present we have bigger matters to consider." Mr Lysnar then moved that the Bill he recommitted with a view to considering the! amendments. Mr 'Fraser: You have lost your punch. i! Colon el- Bell (Bay of Islands) seconded the amendment in a. critical speech, advocating that the Government should either deal firmly with trusts or give way to a party which would do- so. Mr Masters remarked that it was a strong, attitude for two Government sup porter’s to take up, but it was not surprising. considering the way farmers of the' North, Auckland were placed. S<om.e year’s ago they got, store prices for fat stock. Mi - Massey: I know North Auckland. . Mr Masters : Then yon, know the position they w r ere in till they built- works of their own, and now there is Vesteys ' and Fietchers, which, is Vesteys. Mr Massey : What ? Mr Masters: And Whangarei, which is only Vesteys, and they are going to operate right utp to North Auckland. If is only a, matter of time before co-opera-tive freezing works will ho forced outo.f existence and the farmers will 'lose the money invested in these works. And you will ‘have Vesteys operating as in and out buyers for the benefit of Vesteys, and no one else. He held that- Vesteys was a trust with, 2COO retail shops in England. The Hon. A. D. McLeod: To fight ; Americans. Mr Masters: If the Government is long enough in power Vesteys will be ail over New Zealand. The interests of combines and trusts a,re the interests of the Eeform, party. They are wrapped up in each other. The success oif one depends on the success of the other. They are absolutely inseparable,. They are like the Siamese twins. Kill one and you kill' the, other. Mr Hawken defended Vesteys, which, he said, was an English company, which had protected New Zealand from the big American five. Vesteys had never done any harm to New Zealand v people. The Gisborne company itself tried to sell its works to Vestev s I'epre- * ' tentative, although, it, was stated’they did not know he was Vestoy’s representative. There should he inquiry into all the circumstances. Mr Massey : Hear, hear. MINISTER,!AL, REPLY. i Mr Ndsworthy said lie proposed to m ply to Mr Lysnar’s attack on the Government. A Commission would lie, set up to inquire into -this, and he was not afraid o,f the result. He would force , thaiti upon, Mr Lysnar. t i Mr -Massey: That, is a- Ministerial statement.

.Mr Nos wort liy : Aim! there wM be * no tilling leii’ti of Mr Lysnar as far as his dealing's -with combines and trusts w concerned before 1 have finished. The'Minister added that bad the Gisborne company made a. dear with Vesteys, Mr Lysimr would have at'taioked the ’Government it it had refused a license just- as bitterly as lie now attacked it. Tire Minister said he was not going to rob the Commission of the valuable papers in his possession, and Mr Lysnar would have an opportunity of letting the Poverty Bay fanners know who had led thorn on from one thing to another with the great “I am” / idea..

Mr Lysnar said the boot was on the other foot. The negotiations the Minister had referred, to related to an attempt to 'buy otut Veste-ys, not to sell to Vesteys Mr Wilford, criticising the _ Government’s promise of a Commission, said the Government was prepared to answer any charge that they themselves drew up. It recalled the Woolstcm tanneries case. CLOSE DIVISION.

A division was taken' on Mr Lysnar’s amendment, which' was rejected hy 30 votes against 28. The Ball was read a third time and passed. (Fer Press Association.) The Hon. W. Ntmvorthy said that lie proposed to disregard the personal attacks made upon himself, but he did propose to say that an inquiry would foe held into the whole of the facts connected with the aa.l p of the Gisborne meat works. “That- is a Ministerial promise,” he added. Continuing, Mr Nnsworthy said that there would lint lie much in Sir Lysnar s connection with trusts and combines, shipping and otherwise, that wmfid not |,e exposed before lie was done with him. He then read copies of correspondence purporting to show that Mr Lysnar had offered the Gisborne works to Vesteys and Armours, while at the same time denouncing them as trusts and combines in the House, and he asked where was bis consistency ! Vest’eys had come into the country under a Liberal Government, but' there was ample power in the existing legislation to control them, and l)e would not hesitate to use that power if ever it became necessary. ' No member of the House lead worried the Premier or himsesf more than Mr Lysnar had, hut Mr Lysnar had not taken one single step which was not for his own selfish ends to grind his own axe. There would, however, soon be an opportunity of let--f.ing the producers see what humbugs had led and misled them Mr Lysnar, in the course of a personal) explanation, raid that if the whole of the correspondence was read it would show the boot was on tie other foot. Mr Fortes said the discussion had shown cleariy that Vestevs had acquired

the Gisbr.rno works in the fare of the fact that the House was, definitely against those big concerns getting a. hold on the country. It was wellknown. that one of these big firms, if they’ 1 had only a few works, could dominate the whole of the country, because they could rail their stock for many miles. He welcomed the promised commission of inquiry, because the farmers .sliou'id know exactly wlia.t had happened. Ho entirely agreed wit.li Mr Lysnar’s proposal to remodel the Meat Control Board, and he could not understand why the Government opposed it when it was „ previously before the House.

Mr Massey .said' tliaf he was not in New Zealand when Vesteys bought the Gisborne, works and knew nothing about it. But bad lie been here probably he would have done, just as his colleagues had done, and he l took hi.s full share of the responsibility. The trusts were completely' Hinder coni nil owing to tho system of licenses which- (he Government could gra.nl or refuse as they thouight fit. ‘ Thai alteration in the law was what put the American trusts in their plnee. and, since then, they had had on trouble. At the same time, he insisted upon an inquiry into the facts, because ti e whole tiling had been a misery to him. and it must he cleared up. Personally le preferred a. direct, form of ,c-Ipc t.ion for the Meat. Control Board, but- that could le done, by regulation and did not require an Art of Parliament. He then -proceeded to review the history of the meal industry which led to the- setting up of the Control Board.

Mr Massey claimed that, the Board had done excellent; work, and said that, it- would have been most, unfair to try and pull the Board to pieces in the absence of the theiman, who had worked exceedingly hard to, make the Board a, .success. He defended Vesteys as a large and reputable firm, who, "it Was true, had many shops. He was coming t-a the r/rnch’ision .Mint New Zealand waned .some day have- to have a thousand shops of her own. and they would have to be spread over the whole of Britain The member for Stratford had accused the Government- of being mixed up with trusts and combines. He gave the statement an emphatic denial. Neither he nor his Government- had relations of any kind with trusts amicombines. He claimed lie, had done more for the producers of New Zealand than any other ten men, instancing his share in promoting the- meat commandeer, in securing ships to carry the meat-, in reducing taxation, and in procuring cheap money a« proof of his statement.

At this stage the Premier was in formed by Mir Speaker that he was get ting wide of the- subject of the Bill.

Mr Massey then concluded by expressing a hope that they would hear no more of the Government’s connection with- trusts, combines, and banking institutions, because no such connections existed. Mr Holland trusted that when a. If ova I Commission was appointed it woit’cl not deal with Vesteys alone, but would look into the whole question of trusts and that it would act under a, wide order of reference. The discussion was continued briefly by Messrs Field, Ve-itch, , Parr, and Wilford, and a.t 12.Z0 a division was taken on Mr Lysnar’s amendment, when tiro re-corn'mittail of the Bill was negatived bv 20 votes to 28.