NEW ZEALAND MEAT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXXVI, Issue 3558, 19 September 1916, Page 2

NEW ZEALAND MEAT.

SALES ON THE HOME MARKET.

FAIIMERS' PROTEST TO THE GOVERNMENT.

At- the annual meeting of the Methyen Agricultural and Pastoral Association yesterday afternoon, Mr T. S. Doherty ■brought up the matter of j the marketing of New Zealand mutton and lamb.- When the New Zealand meat was commandeered, said Mr Doherty, it was understood that the i primary objective in. doing so was to ensure a supply of meat for the troops, j The producers were quite satisfied with the price given, and raised no objection to the action of the Government; but they had no idea that this meat would be placed on the market and that tli© profits from the sales would I go into the pockets of the middlemen, i If the meat was supplied to the troops, or sold to the l consuming public in England at a reasonable price, then the producers would not complain. But what was happening;.? Large quantities of mutton and all the lamb was being released and placed on the markei at high prices.: The profits were not going to the Imperial Government nor to the New Zealand Gov-leminent-—they were being taken' by the middleman. Tho British public were at present paying Is 2d per lb for New Zealand lamb, and he (Mr Doherty) would like to know how. this came about. He thought that the meeting should pass a resolution of protest against such a state of affairs existing. New Zealand producers had spent years and years in working up a meat trade wi.th England, and although New Zealand mutton and lamb were acknowledged to be tho better, it was being sold at a price below the Argentine product. For some unexplainable reason the meat which had been commandeered was being released by the Imperial Board of Trade, and sold at a price which was exorbitant compared with the nrice paid to tho producers. If the Government was getting the benefit of ,the increased price, and so was assisted in prosecuting the war, it would not matter. What was objected to was the fact that the consumers were paying a high price for their meat and the profits were going to the middleman. He -thought that the position was most unsatisfactory. Mr Doherty then moved—"That the members of this association are of the opinion that tho present system of disposal of New Zealand meat, especially lamb, released on the London market ■■ is^ most unsatisfactory to the prodncers in this Dominion, and this meeting earnestly requests the Government to take 'steps which will place the meat producers' interests on a fairer and more equitable footing in the future." The ..motion!-'was seconded by Mr, W: Buchan,,. jun., who said-that the; position, appeared to be most' unsatisfactory. \ : ■...- ■ „'i • . • ■!> '■•■■■■•'. ■" "V. 1 '■; Mr D. McDonald said they did not know how much of the meat was being released or how long it was held in store, and the resulting extra cost incurred from the time it left New Zealand -to the time it yraa placed on the Home market.

Mr Doherty: All the lamb is re-leased-^-ihat is the chief trouble. Continuing, Mr McDonald said it was certain that a profit was being made, but it was not so exorbitant as j it appeared. None of the meat, was released until it had been in store for three months, and by the time the heavy freight, storage, and handling charges had been paid, the product became much more expensive to the consumer.

Mr E. Mahood said the New Zealand Government had gone very carefuily into the question raised, and a \ great deal of correspondence had passed between the N«w Zealand Government and the High Commissioner. It appeared that the efforts of both Government and High Commissioner had been unsuccessful, and neither was able to get to the bottom of the matter. It had been stated definitely that none of the New Zealand lamb had. gone to the troops,, and it could only bo surmised that it was all being placed on the market. The fact that freight charges were' very heavy would not account for tb» increased price being paid for Argentine lamb on tho London market, compared with the New Zealand product, because the increased charges would ' affect Argentine just the same. The Prime Minister had stated that when he went Home he would enquire fully into the matter, and the result of his investigations would be awaitied with interest.;

Mr Morgan said that if the lamb was not being used for the troops, he could not understand why it had been commandeered at all.

Mr McDonald: "Mr Mahood has \ said that the charges on the New Zea- j land meat apply equally to the Argen-< tine product. I do, not think that is I so. The -Argentine producers deal directly with the butchers, in England, and consequently the storage fees are not nearly so heavy. The New Zealand lamb was' acknowledged to bo better, than Argentine, and it is difficult to understand why it is that the latter brought the higher price. The' only explanation appeared to be that while the Argentine producers could draw up contracts and guarantee "a steady supply, the; Now Zealand meat was placed on the market unawares,, and buyers could not depend upon a regular supply."

Mr Mahood said it was well known that there was considerable congestion in regard to shipping in English ports, and ho asked if it was suggested that tho boats containing Argentine meat wore given quicker ' despatch than those carry ing the New Zealand article ,? He did not think that was the case. :.; . ,

Mr McDonald, in reply, said he did not think the Argentine boats wore given preference "at all.- What he meant was that the New. Zealand moat, being commandeered, was placed in store and released. at the will of the Board of Trade, so'that it was impossible for any contracts to bo made for tlie sale of the New Zealand product. The motion, on being put to the. meeting, was carried unanimously, and ,it was decided that it be sent to Mr Dickie, M.P... with the request that the matter bo brought under the notice of the Government.