BOARD DOES NOT WISH TO CONTROL MEAT INDUSTRY

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 16, Issue 28, 4 December 1950, Page 5

BOARD DOES NOT WISH TO CONTROL MEAT INDUSTRY

In his. capacity as vice-chairman of the New Zealand Meat Producers’ Board, Mr J. D. Ormond, Waipukurau, referred in Gisborne to the Meat Board policy of going into partnership with five New Zealand freezing companies to form a distribution agency in the United Kingdom.

Mr Ormond was speaking to a gathering of farmers at the Kaiti Freezing Works at the Meat Board sponsored Gisborne fat lamb competition, which was conducted by the P.B. Agricultural and Pastoral Association. He said there had been some criticism from a former chairman of the New Zealand Dairy Board, Mr W. A. lorns.

Mr lorns, Mr Ormond said, had been conversant with the position some 20 or 30 years ago, but did not understand the conditions in London today.

The purpose of the agency would be to attempt to restore the industry to a pre-war footing, he said. The organisation would be harmful to no one, but aimed purely at “open-door channels.” “Do not listen to any idle stories that the board wishes to control the industry in London,” said Mr Ormond. “They are rediculous. “If there is anyone to blame for the proposal that blame is attachable to me, and I will take the full blame if it proves a failure. However. I am convinced that it will be a success. Gisborne Visit Planned “The London manager, Mr A. C. Chisholm, the chairman of the board, Mr G. Grigg, and I will visit Gisborne in the autumn to put the whole case from the board’s angle before you, and I trust that until that meeting takes place you withhold criticism,” he concluded. Following a talk on farming in the British Isles, Mr S. D. Reeves, Dominion chairman of the meat and wool section of Federated Farmers, made reference to Mr Ormond’s remarks and said he supported the views of Mr lorns, which had been critical of the Meat Board policy. \ Mr Reeves referred to the plan as a “partnership with certain elements of the trade,” and expressed himself as strongly opposed to the course. The Act, he said, stated that the board was set up to control meat in New Zealand.

While he had every sympathy with the board in its endeavour to resuscitate the industry, he felt there were other methods that could be adopted to reach the same objective.

“I would urge farmers to have a really good look at what their board is doing,” he said. It was a case of a controlling body “going into business” with a portion of the trade.

Mr Reeves then asked how could the board control those companies *• not embraced by the partnership. He likened the situation to a referee “going into a game on the side of one of the contestants.”

“I am opposed to it,and the farmers should be sure the MeatBoard is not making a mistake,” he concluded.