RATIONING FOOD

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 72, Issue 6239, 7 June 1946, Page 5

RATIONING FOOD

R.S.A. DISCUSSION WIDELY VARYING VIEWS Opinion poles apart as to the virtues of further compulsory rationing to provide more food for Britain were voiced at the annual conference of the New Zealand Returned Services Association before a resolution was carried urging the Government to provide as much food as possible for export consistent with the maintenance of our national health. Several speakers quoted circumstances at freezing works, in shipping, and in primary production which they consideredTillustrated that the saving of coupons was an idle gesture. Others parried with the claim that our assistance through the Food for Britain campaign was a most worth-while effort. Allegations of farcical laxity in the operation of present rationing were also made. Mr M. S. Myers (Dunedin) set the ball rolling with an amendment to a remit, offering wholehearted support to the present food-saving campaign and asking that the association’s Dominion executive council formulate further measures to stimulate efforts already made. Money did not come into the question, said Mr Myers, for monetary gifts meant nothing to people starving on the other side of the world. We must consider whether the amount of food consumed here could be reduced. If so, we must export the surplus. “I’m a farmer, and I am sitting with some farmers,” said Mr H. Berthelson (Western Suburbs). “We can produce more, but where are the ships to take it away?” He mentioned that recently some stock, after starving for five days in the yards, were returned to a farmer because of some trouble at the freezing works. Matters would improve if people at the works did their job as well as the producers did theirs. No one could guarantee that every extra pound of food saved here would get to Britain, said another delegate. Every food ship was liable to be diverted to Europe by the Washington Food Board.

Another suggested that it would be better to concentrate on boosting primary production than to try more rationing, which would fall heavily on manual • labourers.

Moving the amendment later adopted, Mr J. D. Gerard (Whangarei), said a lot of lip-service had been paid to the food-saving campaign. We were equally concerned with feeding rhe people of Europe as well as of Britain.

“If we have a surplus of food, for God’s sake don’t say we can’t let it go,” said Mr Gerard. “I’ve given coupons and had them cancelled by the man at the post office, and asked him what was going to happen to them. He replied, ‘I haven’t the faintest idea!” Mr Smallwood, chairman of the Famine Emergency Committee, said that room would be found for our surplus food on ships. If that can be done under voluntary rationing, it can be done if a greater surplus is created under further compulsory rationing.’’ A delegate said he was dead against confining our help to Britain alone. We must help everybody, for any relief we can afford Europe was helping Britain.

Another farmer delegate asked what was the use of further rationing if the freezing works could not handle the stuff? It was idle to talk about further rationing if we had more bulk supplies than we know what to do with.

The complaint was supported by a speaker, who said that a top man at a big freezing works had told him that, owing to lack of. store capacity, his works were operating at only a third to a half of its potential. One speaker deprecated the small impression New Zealand’s saved surplus could make on the vast requirements of Britain or Europe, and another suggested that they should appeal to trades unions regarding strikes and hold-ups affecting production, processing, and transport of food while the present world shortage existed. “I’ve been a prisoner of war and been fed by the people who are now starving,” said Mr Malcolm’ Mason (Wellington). “Whether the food goes to Britain or Europe dosn’t matter. I must confess I have been disappointed about rationing. We looked to the Government for a lead. “It was a very wishy-washy lead. It said, ‘Let the willing horse carry the load.’ Mr Fraser had said he was looking to the R.S.A. for a lead. Here and now is the opportunity for us to give a lead and make our names good.” Mr Mason repudiated the cry of how little we could give. That little could make the difference between borderline living and dying.

The present system of rationing of meat was roundly condemned by some delegates. They claimed it was being abused throughout the country, and thousands of tons would be saved if rationing operated as had been intended. Not 50 per cent of the people in New Zealand were truly rationed in meat. A dairy farmer delegate added that production could be doubled if they had the stuff to produce with—fertiliser, lime, labour and machinery. Mr C. O. Bell, vice-president, said the extra sacrifice should be borne by all, and compulsorily reduced ration scales were the only way of achieving that. If we ate less, more must be available for export. It was up to the people to see that it got away. Mr Bell suggested that the Dominion council should consult labour, production, and shipping interests to that end. Sir Andrew Russell (Hastings) agreed that if the present rules of rationing were carried out to the letter and the spirit, we would be mining more available for export than at present. Production should have been taken in hand two years ago, organised by men who knew something about it. Labour, machinery, and the relation of farming costs to returns had been the difficulties. People in Britain or Europe could not live now on mutton chops which they would get in two years’ time.