PROPOSED MEAT POOL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16625, 6 January 1922, Page 5

PROPOSED MEAT POOL.

CONDEMNED JN LONDON. LORD ASKWITH’S CONDEMNATION OF SCHEME By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright. Australian and N.Z. Cable Association. LONDON, January 5. Lord Ask with, formerly Chief Industrial Commissioner, interviewed by the “ Financial Times’* said: “The permanent adoption of Mr Massey’s proposed meat pool would be playing into the hands of the trusts and other countries to the detriment of New Zealand and our supply of meat from British Dominions. So great F the consumers’ feeling against Government control, alter the distressful e>perience of control of meat during the war, that the consumer would probably start with a prejudice against Now Zealand pooled mea fc.”

ASHBURTON PETITION.

ASHBURTON COUNTY. (Per Press Association.) The petition being circulated in Ashburton County against the proposed meat pool is reported to bo receiving strong support from producers. Between 700 and 800 farmers’ signatures have already been attached to the document. A motion approving of the meat pool provided it was under the control of the producers, was carried at a meeting of the Seafield branch of the Farmers’ Union on Wednesday evening. A further motion was carried stating that a petition circulated by opponents to the pool was signed by a large number of members under the misapprehension that tile Government was to control the pool. About twenty farmers were present at the meeting, which was addressed by Mr T. Buxton, Dominion organiser of the Farmers’ Union, who dealt mainly with aspects of the Government’s wheat purchase scheme. I THE WELLINGTON CONFERENCE. j WILL IT BE OPEN TO THE PRESS? | Meat exporters generally would weli come, an open conference of producers I in Wellington in regard to the pool, but j the question is expected to be decided • by the Prime Minister. “ If the Government's decisions are I based on the votes of delegates elected ! ns these farmer delegates are elected,” I said one exporter, “ the more light | thrown on the matter the better for the i whole country, as it is proposed to j pledge the public funds in support-of a 1 section cf the community.”

FREEZING CHARGES,

REPLY TO MR DAVID JONES. [ REDUCTION-THIS SEASON. Sir Francis Boys, in compliance with the request of a “ Star ” reporter to comment on Mr 1). Jones’s statements regarding freezing charges, said yesterday : “ In reply to Mr Jones’s question at* his mooting as to what evidence T , could bring as to reduced charges l>eing J in force, f refer him co the Department of Agriculture, which recently made an inquiry as to the freezing charges in force throughout the countVv, and 1 have no doubt that an examination of that return will show that such reduced freezing charges are actually in force in many directions, but as concrete evidence of the fact that so far as the South Island is concerned, at any rate, reductions have been made, I can quote the charges which have been in force in Canterbury since the commencement of this season. To put it shortly, in- rates charged by the New Zealand I?( frigerating Company this season are over 8 per cent less than they were last year, whereas the reduction in wages is considerably less than 8 per cent, and our company, in common with most other companies, has lost a considerable revenue for storage on Imperial Government meat, which even last year amounted to a sum considerablj T in excess of the above reduction in charges. “ As the information which I have given is public property,” Sir Francis Boys added, “ I cannot quite understand Mr Jones calling upon me for the evidence.”

MEAT EXPORTERS,

REPLY TO MINISTER. ; The Exporters’ Association has ■ issued the ioiiowing statement: j 1 lie minister ot Agriculture has ist sued an official statement that the j oiwy eriticisyi which so lar lias come J to light is of a destructive nature, and . that no one lias been able to put for- | ward any suggestions for improvement, i or for any alternative scheme which will alford chat protection to producers’ interests which the present day position demands.” The reply to this is that the meat traders of New Zealand and Great Britain knew nothing whatever about the scheme until they saw it in the newspapers. Immediately they heard of it they went up to Wellington, and the committee of Members of Parliament which was responsible for the scheme gave a number of them, through the courtesy of Mr D. Jones, a long interview, in course of which constructive proposals were put forward in addition to destructive criti-

cism, and a definite offer was made that men of lifelong experience in the trade would gladly give their services to the country in helping the Government to evolve a workable scheme (as they did in the case of the Imperial Government during the war), if they were invited to do so. They suggested that the extravagantly inflated value of land was responsible for much tif the present trouble, and predicted that at the values at which products would find a post war level, no man could make a living oil this high-priced land. There- . fore, an immediate inquiry should be made with a view to the Government writing down ’land values. They: pointed out the grave objections to compulsion by legislation in matters of trading, and gave reasons from their experience for anticipating that a compulsory meat pool would be disastrous in its effects upon the meat producers’ business, and New Zealand’s trade as a whole. They pointed out how all the advantages which the committee anticipated from the compulsory scheme could be secured by & voluntary pool, and promised their good will, if the Government asked for it, in securing: 1. That a New Zealand Board, or the Government, should be given the right to bargain with the whole of the meat freight from the Dominion, for the purpose of trying to get a lower rate of freight from the shipping companies.

2. That it would be easy to formulate a scheme for saving the time of refrigerated steamers, by limiting the number of ports at which they should load.

3. That a scheme for reducing the multiplicity of small lots by pooling by voluntary agreement would not be difficult of arrangement. 4. That a scheme for securing to such producers as wished io avail themselves of it, the benefits of a guaranteed minimum price for their stock, and a liberal advance against it, could be arranged, without disturbance and loss to the whole trade. 5. That the meat in a voluntary pool could be protected on the Home market, so far as was humanly possible, by the Government inviting the goodwill of the London meat importers, instead of by antagonising them.

These offers of constructive assistance were made before Christmas, and the last ten days might have been spent in constructive work, had they been accepted- Instead, the producers have been invited to numerous meetings, where the very doubtful advantages of this sketchy compulsory scheme have been cheerfully offered them as assured results; and (as at Ashburton) a distinct refusal to allow criticism from meat traders, either constructive or destructive, has been given at official bidding. In face of these facts, it is not possible for the Minister of Agriculture to persist in his statement quoted above.

ARMOUR’S VIEWPOINT

SCHEME UNWORKABLE. (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON. January 5. Some remarks upon the proposal of che Government to establish a meat pool were made to a “ Times ” representative by Mr W. Irving Carney, managing director for Armour and Co. in Australasia. He spoke of the proposal from the point of view in which it is regarded by the company he represents. “ Many producers who signed the Armour petition,” said Mr Carney, “are asking the question: What has the Government done about it? The answer is, the meat 0001. According to Mr Massey’s own statement before the House,* as published in the newspapers on December 20, he said that during a discussion by the Reform Party on the Armour petition someone had suggested, either himself or a member, that if something could be done by pooling, the same as was done under the commandeer, the difficulties regarding Armours’ license would be overcome. It is a* well-known fact that the Imperial Government has been in cable communication with the New Zealand Government and has asked it not to treat Armour and Co. any differently than it did other exporters throughout New Zealand. It really seems to me as if the producers of New Zealand are going to be compelled to accept a compulsory meat pool instead of the Government granting Armour and Co. the license they are entitled to. “As far as the meat pool is concerned, personally I think that if stock and station agents could pool iheir own clients’ meat this would undoubtedly be a great help to farmers. At the same time, as indicated by figures obtained from the Bank of New our meat to-dav is bringing prices which compare very favourably with pre-war prices. The only way in which the Government, if it is sincere in its desiro to help the producers, could possibly be of any assistance, as far as I can see, would be to cut down freezing charges and shipping freights. “To .sum the whole position up, it looks to me as if the Government in making a compulsory pool is forming one of the biggest trusts that have ever been established in New Zealand or any other country. The whole scheme, so far as pooling meat is concerned, :* s absolutely unworkable.” In conclusion, Mr Carney denied a statement made at Masterton on Wednesday by Sir Whiter Buchanan that he (Air Carney) was manager for the so called “ Big Five ” in the iVnmn

meat industry. “Sir Walter certainly does flatter,” he remarked.

FURTHER COMMENT BY THE “TIMES.” According to a private cablegram received in Christchurch yesterday, the “ Times ” city editor states that possible benefit of the scheme “ would be much more than offset by the disadvantages that would result through the break-up of methods that have served the Dominion and the individual well for about half a century.” He adds that while the scheme may assist a solution of certain shipping difficulties those with experience “ have too lively a recollection of the ill-effects of the Government participation in trade to view the proposals with favour.”