MEAT TRADE

Southland Times, Issue 25313, 17 June 1935, Page 5

MEAT TRADE

POLICY OF BOARD METHODS OF CONTROL An outline of the Meat Board’s policy in controlling the frozen meat trade was given by Mr James Begg, a member of the board, at the annual conference of the Otago Provincial Council of the Farmers’ Union. Mr Begg s statement read: — “The position is that certain freezing works are licensed to kill for export. The holders of these licenses have a monopoly of this business. Exporters of meat are also licensed, but cannot export unless they can get excess to the works that are licensed to slaughter for export. The danger bf monopoly is present in both cases, and the aim of the Meat Producers’ Board is to prevent the privileges granted by the various companies and individuals being abused. The first line of defence is the right of any farmer to kill, ship and sell his own product if he is not satisfied that th'e price offered locally is a fair one. “To secure this it is necessary to see that such farmers have open to them killing facilities, shipping space and an open market in Britain. The two former are secured to him, but if the meat market in Britain were cornered by a few very large interests free competition might be almost eliminated. The consignment market in Smithfield must be preserved. It must be noted that the portion of New Zealand meat marketed at Smithfield is being slowly but steadily reduced. “Companies which have premises licensed to kill for export are not to be allowed to use them solely for their own export trade, but can be, and are being, compelled to handle stock for other exporters. On the other hand, no exporter is being allowed to obtain too large a proportion of the meat available. If this were allowed, other distributing agencies would be deprived of supplies and would turn to other sources for their stocks. It is in New Zealand’s interest to have as many distributing agencies as possible interested in the selling of her products. While it is right that exporters should have access to freezing works, it is unreasonable that any licensed exporter should at any time demand the use of freezing facilities for any number of stock. Freezing works have to arrange their season’s business in advance, and either make arrangements to have a buying staff operating or to enter into contracts with exporters to supply the necessary stock. “If any exporter makes his arrangements with a freezing company before the .season begins and undertakes to supply, say, 10,000 head of stock at reasonable intervals the Meat Board will see that facilities are made available, if there is no good reason to the contrary. Exporters have been known to make sudden raids into certain districts, giving a price considerably higher than they were paying elsewhere, and demanding space in freezing works with which they had made no previous arrangements. The business cannot be conducted on these lines. There are interests here—powerful financially—which could afford to lose money for a time willingly in order to destroy competitors and secure the field for themselves. To prevent this is one of the aims of the board. “If complete freedom, both in regard to slaughtering and exporting stock, were granted, the freezing works would rapidly become the property of the large overseas interests, as also would the export business. The trade in Britain would then have to buy from these exporters, and the open market in Britain for our meat would disappear or be severely curtailed. We want the strongest competition possible for stock in the field in New Zealand that is consistent with a free and open market in Britain for meat; and the actions of the Meat Producers’ Board are directed to achieve this end.”