BRITICISM OF MEAT BOARD

Taranaki Daily News, 4 October 1929, Page 11

BRITICISM OF MEAT BOARD

AMENDING BILL IN HOUSE ’’ MR. LYSNAR’S FEAR OF TRUSTS. . SUPPORT FROM MANY MEMBERS. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. Mr. W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne), in inducing the Meat Export Control Amendment Bill in the House of Representatives to-day, said he hoped it would be treated as a non-party measure, and that it would be dealt -with during the present session as he considered it attacked the root cause of the general depression and widespread unemployment. Mr. Lysnar claimed the Meat Board had failed to control the marketing oi produce-in a proper, manner, and pointed out that, tho middleman’s profits, were, far too high. Trusts were getting the money instead of the producers. He considered the middleman’s charges could be reduced by five to ten million pounds, and if the farmers had that amount added to their income they would would not be likely to complain against paying an additional £300,000 in taxation. The main proposals in the Bill were to make the board representative of the farmers, to do away with the commercial interests’ representative and to make a reasonable and effective effort to control the operations of overseas-owned freezing works. Mr. M. J. Savage said it seemed that Mr. Lysnar was on the. right track. It. was necessary that there should be legislation to bring producers and consumers closer together. There was a. Government in Britain favourable to the principles of co-operative marketing, and' if the New Zealand Parliament was not, going to take advantage of .that it. wpuld l seem that the members were lacking in their duty to the producers and to the Dominion generally. He trusted the Government would take up Mr. Lysnar’s Bill. STRATFORD MEMBER’S VIEWS. Mr. W. J. Polson said he considered the subject was one of the most important that had been raised in the House this session. The Meat Board had started well by passing a solemn resolution that no oversea works should be allowed to acquire interests in New Zealaud, and had lived up to it for a time. However, trusts had begun the policy of peaceful penetration and the result was that now only two independent works were operating in the Dominion. The Meat Board was a costly institution and had given good service in many ways, including a reduction m costs to the producer, but it was capable of doing more. Enormous profits were made out of New Zealand produce when it reached the other side of the world. The effect of control by big combinations was to squeeze out the small farmers’ organisations. Mr. H. R. Jenkins supported the Bill and' added that there was too great a difference between the amount received by the producer and the price the consumer paid. The House should treat the matter very seriously. Mr. D. Jones said the whole of the facts had not been placed before the House. A total of 47.7 per cent, of New Zealand mutton and lamb went to Smithfield, and any butcher could go to the market there and buy a single carcase if he wished to do so. Mr. Jones denied that the Meat Board had gone back on its policy so far as overseas interests were concerned. The board had passed a resolution that it must give its consent to overseas interests buying meat in New Zealand. Every case was decided on its merits and questions coming before the board were viewed from every possible angle. The board’s sole interest was that of the New Zealand producer. The percentage price the New Zealand farmer was getting for his meat was beyond the index price of every other country. There was very little room for improvement in the system. To-day the farmer was nearer the consumer than he had ever been before. The man who formerly had been speculating and operating iif New Zealand had been entirely squeezed out. '■ Mr. J. T. Hogan said he hoped the Government would go into the matter and ascertain whether New Zealand producers were getting anything like the return to which they were entitled for the sale of their produce in the Old Country. "CLUMSY AND EXPENSIVE” Mr. H. G. Dickie expressed his support for the general principles of the Bill and stated the system of election to the Meat Board was clumsy and expensive. Mr. H. E. Holland said he hoped the if the Government would not take up Government would allow Mr. Lysnar to have the second reading of the Bill, even Mr. Lysnar’s measure itself. He thought it should introduce some legislation. to deal with the points to which attention had been drawn. There had never been a more favourable time than the present to take up such a matter. There was a proposal in Britain to form a food purchasing board, and if the New Zealand Government were to get in touch with the authorities there it might be possible through such a board, or by some other arrangement, to arrive at a more scientific method of marketing produce. It was regrettable that trusts had been permitted t$ gain such a hold in New Zealand. The problem was one that had to be approached from a'national viewpoint. There was a field for investigation and immediate action in the marketing of the primary produce of New Zealand. Mr. 11. M. Rushworth said he did not claim the Meat Board had not done good work, but it was doubtful whether in its present state it could continue to do good work. The Bill was undoubtedly a move in the right direction and he would support its general principles. The Hon. G. W. Forbes said one thing that had emerged from the discussion was that the Government at present in power in Britain had made statements in relation to the marketing of foodstuffs that were of importane to Britain. Marketing ■was a difficult problem and he was glad the Imperial Government had decided to take the matter in hand. If the farmers would combine to organise their own freezing works there would be no need to worry about trusts. In the last few years New Zealand had been busy stocking up with breeds of cattle to meet its own requirements, and now that that had been done he was satisfied there would be a very large increase in the immediate future in exports of lamb. ■ ■ The measure proposed by Mr. Lysnar

was one that could not be taken up lightly. He did not claim that the present marketing system was perfect, but he did not think it was the opinion of the farmers generally that the Meat Board was not doing good work. He was sure the farmers’ representatives would have made very urgent representatives to the Government had they felt that they were suffering any injustice. Mr. A. Hamilton said the farmers had a majority control of the board and could exercise it any time they wished. They had five members out of eight, the others consisting of two Government and one trade representative. He was satisfied. Mr. W. J. Jordan urged greater progress in the development of co-operative marketing. Mr. H. M. Campbell expressed a doubt that the fanners’ interests could best be served by a meat board. Mr.. Lysnar, in reply to Mr. Forbes, said the farmers were tired of asking for legislation, but he was satisfied he would have little difficulty in obtaining resolutions from their organisations to support his attitude. The Bill was read a first time.