RESTRICTION ON KILLING

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21417, 8 March 1935, Page 17

RESTRICTION ON KILLING

TO THE EDITOR Of THE PRESS. Sir, —I read with great amusement of the unanimous vote of the Sheep Owners' Union, confirming the Meat Board's restriction on Borthwick's works. The fact remains that 011 the same schedule as other works so many sheep owners nreferred to sell their lambs to Borthwick's that the Meat Board thought it necessary to restrict Borthwick's. Surely actions speak louder than words and prove conclusively the real wishes of the fat lamb owners: for they had it in their own hands not to let Borthwick's have a single lamb. Mr Acland states that he is anxious to get the killing charges reduced and further states that three or four works operating at full capacity could kill all the fat sheep in Canterbury. Then, I maintain, there is 110 way of getting really economical killing but to allow those three or four works to kill them. Would Mr Acland Keep two offices and two staffs to do his solicitors' work when one office and one staff could do it? I say most emphatically, No. The meat producers in New Zealand paid a levy of £34,C00 to the Meat Board last year and all the business ability they can display apparently in Canterbury is that the meat producers here cannot even be allowed to have the advantage of an economically run works. There is no doubt the Government has done really good work in passing a bill which provides in all parts of New Zealand the farmer has Ihe option of compelling any works to kill and ship on his own account or accept the company's offer for his' mea't, and I put it to Mr Acland that if Borthwick's owned all the works in New Zealand, the farmer would still have the same right. The farmer has the right in Canterbury to hold his meat on the hooks; but where Borthwick's do not compete the farmer pas rot got this option. It has been said that the chain system has given Borthwick's an advantage. How, then, is it that Borthwick's peak year was prior to the inauguration of the chain killing system? The chain killing system would really bo of more advantage to other works if they took advantage of it, for Borthwick's are hampered by havi.ig the smallest storage capacity in Canterbury and this handicap limit;, their activities.

The Meat Producers' Board hu' a duty to lower the killing charges for the'farmers: the following facts must be plain and unanswerable in spite of all the nonsense spoken ana n solutions passed: 1. That seven works operating "1 half capacity cannot kill as cheaply as three or four works run at full capacity. 2. That one works really well run must pay any company better than two or three works fiddling about. 3. That the shareholders will receive more profit from one works well run than two or three works dividing the work and increasing the cost; and the farmer should receive a lower killing rate.

4. That the restriction on Borthwick's of 620,000 makes a difference of 138.000 on their peak year. 5. That the restriction on Borthwick's, compared to their peak year, if evenly distributed, makes only four days' capacity killing additional for each works during a season of seven months.

G. That the restriction placed on Borthwick's compared to last year's killing would, if evenly distributed, make one day and a half additional killing at capacity for each of the other works.

7. That the other operators each week fix a price nad have fixed rail charges, killing charges, etc. 8. That while all the works are kept in operation at half capacity the killing charges cannot be reasonable. 9. That the Meat Board's job is not to keeD charges high, but to put the freezing industry in order and get the charges down. 10. That when the Government has been to the expense of thousands of pounds to investigate economical industries the Meat Beard is not playing the game in keeping seven works operating when three or four are sufficient.

11. That the restriction is unjust; and when it is considered that the Government is trying to sell everything we produce without restriction in England can onlv bring repercussions when we are not giving a big English firm a right to make reasonable use of its investment. 12. That the assistance given to other works is not worthy of consideration when it is realised that on the average of the last three seasons it only amounts to three days' capacity killing additional for each of them. 13. That owing to the vagaries of the season it is impossible to accurately forecast what is a reasonable restriction for any month during any particular year, and in attempting to do so the Meat Board has shown an appalling ignorance of the whole question.—Yours, etc.. R. D. ROBINSON. EiffeHon, March 4, 1935.