MEAT BOARD’S ACT “SERIOUSLY DAMAGED COMPANIES’ ASSETS.”

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18385, 10 February 1928, Page 5

MEAT BOARD’S ACT “SERIOUSLY DAMAGED COMPANIES’ ASSETS.”

WOULD GIVE CONTROL TO FEW BIG CONCERNS, SAYS MR JAMES BEGG. Per Press Association. DUNEDIN, February 9. At to-day’s meeting of the executive of the Farmers’ Union, Mr A. Hamilton, M.P., a member of the Meat Board, gave an address, in which he replied to statements made at a previous meeting on the action of the board in vetoing the sale of meat works and refusing a transfer of licenses. Mr Hamilton contended that the policy of the board was not detrimental to the interests of freezing companies. The board realised that some of the works might be sold, and that an oversea company might buy them at 20 per cent or 40 per cent, or 50 per cent of their value, which would make it difficult for existing companies to compete against them. In the Argentine freezing works had fallen into the hands of big commercial interests, and the board did not want the same thing to happen in New Zealand. It had been said that the board’s policy destroyed the assets of freezing companies. That was not so. The board believed its policy rather protected the assets of the company. It had alsp been suggested that “something must be done.” In reply he said the board had adopted the only policy that, in its opinion, was practicable under the circumstances. The only other course so far suggested was a merger or a commission to inquire into the position of freezing works. The board had considered those proposals and come to a conclusion regarding them. It had also been said that those who benefited by the closing of works should pay compensation to the works closed, but was that sort of thing done in business? If a farmers’ co-operative association went out of business other companies would not pay compensation to it. although they got its business. The whole position had been scanned by the Meat Board. Representations had been made to it that companies had difficulties in regard to finance, and the board had said it would recommend the transfer of works to anyone the company concerned wished to sell to in order to help them out of their difficulties, and that a free right had been set out in writing to certain companies. The board had to stand by its policy, and it believed it would not be in the interests of farmers to rescind that policy. Mr James Begg also addressed the meeting. He indicated where he considered the board had departed from its policy, and held that the action of the board had very seriously depreciated the assets of freezing companies. -The manager of the Bank of New Zealand had written to a South- Otago company that until the Meat Board and Minister removed restrictions on transfers of meat freezing works’ licenses, it was not prepared to make advances on the security of the works. The present policy of the board, continued Mr Begg, would place a monopoly in the hands of a few powerful companies now trading in New Zealand.