Meat Penalties ‘Offensive’

Press, Volume CV, Issue 31001, 5 March 1966, Page 3

Meat Penalties ‘Offensive’

(N.Z. Press Association) WELLINGTON, March 4. The Meat Board’s plan to impose penalties on companies failing to divert sufficient exports to new markets was today termed “offensive to democratic concepts” by the president of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, (Mr G. E. Stock.) He said the public was fully aware of the need to find new markets for lamb, but claimed the scheme to accomplish that bore an unpleasant resemblance to bureaucratic methods used in some other countries. “It is surely offensive to democratic concepts for the board and the producers as a section to seek the right to impose a penalty or fine on another section, namely, private meat exporters, if they fail to divert a prescribed percentage of their exports to markets other than the United Kingdom,” said Mr Stock. Profitable marketing of New Zealand meat was of great importance, Mr Stock said. “But while that meat be-

longs to the producers, bystanders cannot but be repelled by the proposition that one section of the community should be given the right to impose fines and penalties on another section,” he added. Mr Stock said such a function properly belonged to the Courts. “The possible spread of such a private practice, once recognised and endorsed officially, is not one which the community would contemplate with equanimity,” he said.

Mr Stock said he hoped the Government would persuade those concerned against sectionally imposed penalties as the method of dealing with the meat export situation. The decision that penalty provisions should be employed set a precedent that could react on the producers themselves, Mr H. A. Seifert, spokesman for the New Zea-land-owned meat exporting companies, said. He said it was argued that the “obnoxious penalty pro-

visions” were needful in the interests of the nation. With equal soundness it could be argued that a large increase in beef exports was necessary.

“Farmers, however, show a reluctance to increase beef output, but, in the light of yesterday’s decision and the authorship of the plan adopted, it would not be unreasonable for a meat exporters’ committee to draft a plan for increased beef production,” said Mr Seifert.