MEAT EXPORT BOARD.

Taranaki Daily News, 5 October 1929, Page 8

MEAT EXPORT BOARD.

Criticism of the constitution, system of the .election to, and of th’e methods of the Meat Export Control Board may or may-.not be justified. What seems perfectly obvious is that the amendments proposed in a Bill introduced by Mr. W. D. Lysnar are far more dangerous to the industry than any sins of commission or omission the board is charged with. Stripped of its trimmings, the idea underlying Mr. Lysnar’s Bill is control of the marketing by a New Zealand authority. It would seem to most people that the experienc of the dairy industry, when it made a disastrous experiment in price fixation and control, would be sufficient warning to the meat exporters to have nothing to do with any similar efforts in regard to frozen meat. Judging from the debate in the House of Representatives it appears that if Mr. Lysnar had his way no overseas organisation would be allowed to handle or purchase meat in New Zealand for export purposes. The justification for this attitude, he says, is that trusts and combines are getting the profits that should accrue to the producer. The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. G. W. Forbes) hit the nail on the head when he said the way to counteract any "trust” methods was for farmers to support their own freezing works. No trust or any other buying organisation can control- the situation except by favour of the "producers, and what New Zealand wants is greater demand for her frozen meat, particularly beef, rather than any artificial interference with the flow of trade. Whether the Meat Board has justified its existence is for the industry to say, but the' board’s action in declining to interfere with marketing arrangements has certainly prevented hostility to its operations on the part of British merchants. The Labour Party, that doubtless sees in" Mr. Lysnar’s proposals a tendency to the socialisation of supplies which is one of the party's nostrums, is warmly supporting the proposed Bill. Labour members suggest the Imperial Government might be willing to assist in a marketing scheme for the benefit of the New Zealand producer. When it comes to “brass tacks” the Labour leaders of New Zealand will find that the interests of the British consumer come first with any Home Government, whatever political beliefs it may hold. If the work of the Meat Producers’ Board is not considered to justify its existence it should be swept away. If it is capable of improvement the industry should .point the way, but any foolish experiments in regard to marketing should not be contemplated with any seriousness.