MEAT BOARD.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXIV, Issue 935, 4 December 1933, Page 10

MEAT BOARD.

Policy in New South Wales Attacked. PROPOSED CHANGE HELD OVER. (Special to the “ Star.”) SYDNEY, November 21. When Mr Lang went out of office, the Meat Board which he had set up was doomed to destruction. The Stevens Government has had to pay about £II,OOO by way of compensation to Mr Lang’s nominees; but it now presumably has a Meat Board after its own heart. But if the policy of the new board meets with the entire approval of the Government, it says little for the political wisdom of those whom we have set in authority over us. Additional Charge for Inspection. Here is one case in point. A fortnight ago, the Meat Board gave notice to graziers and mea,t-producers that an additional charge for inspection would be made on all meat coming into the city that had not been killed at the Homebush abattoir. Already there i£ a charge of 6d a carcase on all countrykilled meat, and it is proposed to make heavy additional charges per carcase, ranging from 4d for mutton to 4s for beef. The Meat Commissioner. Mr Merritt, told the “ Telegraph ” that the object of the charge was to compel the country producers to make use of the abattoir. “We are not out for revenue,” he said, “ but to get more business for the State abattoir and to protect the State's investment.” As the sum of £2,000,000 has been sunk at Homebush, and at present more meat is brought in to, the metropolitan area from the country than is slaughtered at the works there is at least a plausible pretext for this levy. But naturally, it has been received with strong demonstrations of disapproval by graziers and cattle breeders and butchers. The Graziers’ Association, the Farmers’ and Settlers’ Association and several of the leading country and suburban freezing companies and meat works at once protested that they were being needlessly exploited for the benefit of a State enterprise, and that the meat-producers would be forced to make the consumer bear the loss. Paper’s Support. These objections were strongly supported by the “ Sydney Morning Herald,” which pointed out that the mere fact that the larger proportion of the meat which supplies the metropolis is country-killed is proof that there are advantages about this system which outweigh the benefits and facilities available at Homebush. It pointed to the important fact that cattle killed in the country are usually in prime condition, cool and unfevered, instead of being compelled “to suffer a long train journey and then to await slaughter in a farm-shed condition, while the auctions take place and the days of killing are arranged.” “ If, as evidence seems to show, killing can be done more satisfactorily in many country centres than in the city or its suburbs, why,” asks the “ Sydney Morning Herald”, “should efficiency be butchered to make a metropolitan industrial holiday? ” Of course, all these arguments carried weight, and in any case it was clear that the primary producers as a body were up in arms against these proposals. Ministers held hurried conferences with the Meat Board, and listened to what delegates from various important primary industries had to say, and Mr Stevens then decided that the time was not propitious for the change. He therefore announced that the new regulations which were supposed to come into force on November 1 would not operate till March 1 next, and that in the meantime the whole position would be reviewed in the light of the best evidence available. It is probable that by this time Mr Stevens had become aware of the unpleasant fact that prominent members of the Country Party were taking up the graziers’ quarrel, and also that insinuations were making themselves heard to the effect that the Government had chosen this means of indemnifying itself at the expense of the primary producers for the heavy compensation it had been compelled to pay to ex-members of the Meat Board. But whatever the Premier’s motives, his decision was a wise one. and its wisdom rather reflects upon the scheme which has caused so much trouble. Prediction Fulfilled. Now for another illustration. The “ Sydney Morning Herald ”, in protesting against the proposed meat charges, pointed out that it would be a mistake to compel the city to depend wholly upon the Homebush Abattoir for its meat, because there might be a strike there any day. That was a fortnight ago, and in the meantime the prediction has been fulfilled. There has been a strike at Homebush. owing to the decision of the authorities to apply the new basic wage, which means the loss of 2s a week to the workers. Happily, wiser counsels have prevailed, and the men have gone back to work. But the threat of the strike proves that the Meat Board would have done wisely to acquiesce in the numerous protests raised by many large employers’ organisations and local bodies against the fall in wages, and the Government would have done wisely to indicate to the Meat Board and to the general public its intention of ignoring the supposed fall in the cost of living. It would appear that the Stevens Government both in regard to the administration of the abattoir and the new basic wage has been lacking in foresight and political wisdom—and all because the chief object of its existence is the cutting down of expenses and the balancing of accounts. “ Mr Stevens and Mr Spooner,” said one of our newspapers the other day. “ are brilliant accountants—but are they anything more than political amateurs?”