Mr Talboys Maintains View

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31107, 9 July 1966, Page 1

Mr Talboys Maintains View

(From Our Own Reporter) WELLINGTON, July 8. The opinion that a statement by Mr W. B. Trotter, South Canterbury member of the electoral committee of the Meat and Wool Boards, was full of inaccuracies was repeated today by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr Taiboys). “I have read Mr Trotter’s most recent comments regarding the South Canterbury fertiliser project with interest,” said Mr Taiboys, “and these comments, in the main, simply add weight to the views I expressed earlier. “Whatever was the extent in terms of numbers of paragraphs of Mr Trotter’s quota-

tion of my letter of July 20 is, I think, quite unimportant. The important fact is, as I stated earlier, that he omitted to quote the latter part of my letter which expressed qualifications of what Mr Trotter has chosen to regard as an unqualified commitment.

“Mr Trotter, in his latest statement, draws attention to the fact that the electoral committee remit, which made it clear that the use of funds should be restricted to a project which could operate on a competitive price basis, was an exact reiteration of the terms agreed on between the Meat Board, the electoral committee, and Federated Farmers, as far back as 1954. “As I see it, the fact that such a remit is of long standing and was reiterated at a time when the South Canterbury fertiliser works was a current issue, serves only to increase its significance as an expression of the views of representative and important farming organisations. This, of course, was one of the main points of my earlier statement

“Mr Trotter goes on to re-

fer to possible differences In price between the Dominion Company and the proposed cooperative venture. “Here again, this is exactly the type of information which the Government has asked the Meat Board to provide in order that it can be ensured that the farmers of the district secure their fertiliser from the most efficient source and at the cheapest possible price. “Mr Trotter asks why the proposed co-operative should be required to pay best custo-

mer bank rate for Meat Board advances. My reply is that in the first communication on the question of a co-operative venture using Meat Industry Reserve Account funds, the Meat Board in a letter to the Government dated May 14, 1965, stated that should the application be approved a condition would be that the rates of interest on such money to be the best customer bank rate.

“Accordingly, 1 can only refer Mr Trotter to the Meat Board for comment.”