Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Market Development Was ‘Not A Loss’

Costs of developing meat markets in the United States were strongly defended by the general manager of the Meat Board (Mr J. W. de Cruchy) last night. “In spite of all tht criticism —in spite of all the busybodies going round the country bandying figures, the Meat Export Development Company is in a good position,” he said.

“Our expenditure of £2.25 million was criticised as a wasteful loss. We spent this money in the United States, but these were not losses, believe me, these were development charges.” Addressing the Federation of Young Fanners’ Clubs, which is holding its annual conference in Christchurch. Mr de Gruehy spoke on the functions, problems and responsibilities of the Meat Board. He traversed the history of the organisation from the time the original Meat Export Control Act was passed in January, 1922.

Referring to the Common Market proposal as a complex and difficult situation, Mr de Gruehy said the former British Prime Minister (Mr Harold Macmillan) had sent out “white doves” saying: “We are going in, but you won’t have to worry.”

“How easy it would have been for us to be beguiled into a false sense of security,” Mr de Gruehy said. “It was then that Sir John Ormond formed the Meat Export Development Company. We saw we must diversify. The writing was on the wall. Under E.E.C. there would be a tariff of 20 per cent—just imagine, a 20 per cent drop in the price of our product.” Mr de Gruehy strongly defended the operations of the company, saying the expenditure made in the States had been in costs development.

Subsequently, the Export

and Shipping Council had been formed. During 1965 it had saved producers £1 million, and if there were still any ships around, it would save them another £1 million in 1966. “Instead of sitting once a month, I think the council will soon be sitting once a day,” he said, amidst laughter.

The board, he said, stood for the combination of al] interests. It was an excellent thing that the Shipping Council had the president of the Federation of Labour at its meetings.

Mr de Gruehy said the board had achieved very satisfactory results in Japan and Canada, and was achieving success in the United States. “You can spend a lot of money on promotion,” he said. “It is easy to send a representative overseas and find markets. But whether the meat is going into an economic market and whether it is going to give a return to producers, that is when the acid test comes.”

Mr de Gruehy said the board was now facing a very critical period. “We have turned a cycle,” he said. We are coming back to those selfsame problems of being restricted to hundred-weights of meat, as in 1937. “If anyone could tell me when the United Kingdom is going into the Common Market I would be the happiest man in the world. But we must prepare. Just imagine our position when Mr Wilson announces: ‘We are now in the Common Market.’ I hesitate to think.” “Dry Run”

Mr de Gruehy said the board would be conducting a “dry run” in 1967 in anticipation of E.E.C. marketing conditions. All interested parties would be consulted, and the

situation of diversifying markets examined. “We will continue to send meat to the United Kingdom.” he said. “She is our greatest market, and will continue to be.

“Whatever our representatives in London are discussing, they will be endeavouring to ensure that you people have stability for your markets. But access to markets is fundamental.

“I say, with respect to my colleagues, that the meat industry is pre-eminent of all the producer boards because of the trading we do.” Earlier in his address, Mr de Gruehy referred to the ending of the bulk purchase agreement with the United Kingdom in 1954, and said he could remember wondering what would happen when New Zealand was back in the hands of free trade. “We could see prospects of markets being taken away by other countries. Your board had courage in saying, then, it would end the agreement a year sooner than it could have run. With the end of bulk purchasing came great responsibilities. But in the first year of free trading, 13 per cent of New Zealand's meat was sold outside the United Kingdom.” Mr de Gruchy’s address was given as one in the series of the annual Freeman memorial lectures in memory of Mr S. Freeman, for 20 years organising secretary of the young fanner movement.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19660610.2.165

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31082, 10 June 1966, Page 12

Word count
Tapeke kupu
762

Market Development Was ‘Not A Loss’ Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31082, 10 June 1966, Page 12

Market Development Was ‘Not A Loss’ Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31082, 10 June 1966, Page 12

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert