MARKETING N.Z. PRODUCE

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 23, 21 October 1921, Page 6

MARKETING N.Z. PRODUCE

IS THE PRODUCER “HAD”?

A DEBATE IN THE HOUSE

TALK OF PROFITEERING t When the Imprest Supply Bill was introduced in the House of Representatives yesterday afternoon a discussion developed on the marketing of New Zealand produce in the Old Country. The subject was first mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. T. Al. Wilford). Air. Wilford discussed the prices of New Zealand produce in this country and at Home. He believed the information sent to this country in regard fo prices of meat and wool at. Home was constantly misleading. The country had not been made aware of the huge ‘profits made at Home out of New Zealand produce at the expense of the New Zealand producer. Exports last year came to something like 4153,000.090. Writers in this country stressed the contention that New Zealand had over-import-ed. The fact appeared to be that the prices of imported goods hod so risen that the imports, in. a comparison expressed in money, appeared relatively larger than they should have done. The Press of Great' Britain showed extraordinary price., for New Zealand produce. There did not seem to have been any move to curtail the profiteering in produce from this country. In an article from the "Times,” he found a statement that vendors of wool in 1919 were said to be making 300 to 400 per cent. Did the Primo Minister know that the produce of this country had been marketed absolutely at the, expense of this country? The Food Controller had actually stated'on one occasion that it would not be possible any longer, "to subsidise homekilled from profits bn imported meat”! This was in 1910. What had the High Commissioner been doing?

NO SENTIMENT.

What* kind of information . was the country getting about the prices of its products? What return was it receiving for the cost of the High Commissioner’s office? Mr. Wilford took from Home papers quotations of New Zealand produce prices. The highest price he mentioned was 107 pence for New Zealand scoured merino. Was Great Britain, he asked, dealing with this country in a manner detrimental io the interests of this country? Sentiment and Empire did not come in where it was a question of commerce. When business men ot Britain imported New Zealand meat, weol cheese, or butter, no question of Imperial relations entered into the determination of what, price should be paid to the New Zealand producer or charged to the British consumer. It was sheer business. Would the Prime Minister explain to the farmers whether they were being "had” at the oilier end? The producers were not getting tair treatment. If they were to get the market return for their produce the country would be much letter able to weather the. troubles of the present time.

MINISTERIAL COMMENTS.

The Hon. AV. Nosworthy (Minister of Agriculture) said in reply that during the period of the commandeer the whole of this country’s produce was bought and paid for by tho Imperial Government. Wool, meat, butter, and cheese were bought. New Zealand had the advintage of an assured market and prompt (settlements. Over the actions of the Imperial Government after the purchase of the produce the New Zealand Government had no control. AVhetheir the Imperial Government mishandled the produce ultimately- against its own. interests was a matter for the Imperial Government. Tt was the concern of the Imperial Government if it had held the New Zealand meat longer than there was a market for it and had made losses in consequence. The Imperial authorities had ;nade a loss over the purchase of butter from tlr’s country nt 2s. Gd. per lb. f.0.b.. so that they had to set off losses against profits. Whether they- held New Zealand wool er meat unwisely he was not able to say. but the prices that (his country had got. for its meat, wool, and buffer .and the removal of uncertainty in marketing, had enabled this country to p’ny its part in the war. and had put if in a position not only to nay. its way during the war, but to raise between 70'and 80 millions of pounds for war purposes. Tic did not beltere that h»fore the war anyone would have thouehl such a thing to be possible. It had been a reve’ation. If the Imperial authorities Lari sold New Zealand produce of a profit it was theirs to do as they' liked with. The Government here was not responsible, and he was not sure that the Leader of the Opposition had meant to imnly that it was. If there Iyad been better business ability at the other end he believed the Imperial authorities could have sold the New Zealand produce at a very fair profit and still have kept stocks within reasonable limits, instead of allowing them to bank up as they had done in the case of wool and mutton. He did not think there had been any intention on the part of the Imperial Government to use New Zealand produce: to bolster up Home produce at the expense of the Now Zqalanders, but through mismanagement the result had been something like that. Old stock, of butter, moat and kvool would, however, gradually disappear. Whatever the Imperial Government might be doing with the old stocks was not the business of the New Zealand Government. Members must remember that the huge amount of produce that the Imperial authorities had had to handle? If there had been nothing to find fault with it - would have been almost a perfect world. Dr. IT. T. J. Thacker (Christchurch East) disputed the assertion that all the” primary produce of New Zealand was taken under the cointnandcer. New Zealand meat at the present time, he said, was being retailed at an average of Is. Gd. per lb. in the shops at Home,. The New Zealand producer was not getting more than sd. The retailer at Homo got 3d. for retailing. The sd. and 3d. accounted for Bd. What of the remaining 10d.? Where did it go? The great bulk of the staff in the High Commissioner’s office did not. know where New Zealand was, Dr. Thacker proceeded. In spile of -ill the advertisement?. New- Zealand was supposed to have received, this country appeared to 'be thought in many part, of the world to be "only a row boat’s journey from Brisbane.’’ The member alleged that, during the wnr "preference space” had been given to "friends of the old Tory Party,” who had sold to British consumers at exorbitant prices “all the old bulls and cows” killed in New Zealand. Air. Massey: I give that an emphatic contradiction.

STOCKS OF STALE MEAT.

Mr. G. Forbes (ITurunui) claimed that it was of great moment to New Zealand to watch what the Imperial Government did itwh this country’s produce. So much stale meat had been sold under the name of New Zealand that it would take years to recover tho market built up by the qualify of former supplies. "Wo can’t force the Imperial Government.” interrupted Mr. Nosworthy, when Mr. Fo-bcs suggested that tho Government, should take steps to ensure that the stale im'at was clearly understood by the public not to bo the sort of tiling that New- Zealand was offering.

Mr. Forbes said that conditions should have been attached to the handling and marketing of New Zealand produce by tho Imperial Government. "We have forgotten,” he said, “the value of our goodwill and our good name on the London market. We should have a representative to confer with the Imperial Government about the sale of the stalo meat.”

Mr. Massey said that he was pretty sure all the stale meat was gone now. There had been very little remaining when he was nt Home. Mr. W. D. Lysnar: It's sold to Vcsteys. Mr. Massey: Even Vestoys informed me that it would all be gone within a' few weeks.

MR. MASSEY'S OPINIONS.

The Prime Minister, speaking later in the afternoon, said there was no doubt, that there had been some mismanagement of New Zealand produce 'in the United Kingdom during the period of (lie Imperial contracts. He had felt strongly in regard to wool. All the stored wool could have licen .sold during the first six months of 1920 at prices that would have given a reasonable profit. But it should not. lie forgotten that New Zealand had received a share of the profits ma<'e by the Imperial Government on wool of the earlier clips. A sum of 411,000,000 had been distributed fo the woolgrowers. He wished that something of the sort was coming to them now.

An officer attached to the High Commissioner’s staff watched the marketing of New Zealand produce in Britain. Mr. Massey mentioned that he had suggested that this officer should be sent out to New Zealand to get in touch with the business at this end. An officer from New Zealand could take his place temporarily. ’lt was desirable that the members of the High Commissioner’s staff should be kept in close touch with New Zealand, and he agreed with a suggestion that vacancies on the staff should bo filled from New Zealand. Tt was probable that some of the senior officers under the High Commissioner had been too long away from the Dominion. It was true that the reputation of New Zealand produce had suffered in London owing to the sale of deteriorated meat. Three, million careassesresent originally to .America, had been stored there and 'then reshipped to London in a deteriorated condition. There was no doubt that the beef sold to Vestcy Brothers had been in an unsatisfactory condition. This meat had been hawked round the Continent before it was put on the market in London. His own observations had convinced him that New Zealand ought not to rely exclusively on the London market. The exporters would be wise to send seine of the meat to Bristol Liverpool, Manchester, and even Glasgow. These great centres were asking for New Zealand meat and could absorb large quantities. The Prime Minister added that he did not think the 'meat suffered when it was being carried bv the ships. But there seemed to 'be bad handling sometimes on the English railways.

LOOK TO THE FUTURE.

Mr. W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne) thanked (he Leader of'the Opposition for the facts he had brought forward in the interests of the producers. The Minister of Agriculture, he said, had dealt almost exclusively with the commandeer period. -IVhat should be looked to was the future. Whatever had happened under the commandeer, it was no use crying over spilt milk. The Government should appoint a trade com.missmner at Home—a commissioner entirely apait from the High Commissioner Mr. Lysnar criticised the head of the Produce Department of the High office The information obtained from ?he office, ho asserted, was not reliable. There must be a change. The moat and the shipping trusts must bo dealt with. He complimented the Government ,-hat it had done with Armours hut uraed that similar action should ie taken with Vestey’s. The Government should support the scheme for Pjovi ng retail shons at Home, through nlnch the New Zealand producers would market their own meat. Every week Smithfield ‘ the big Buyers me and fixed the prices for meat. If any buyer refused to fall in with the general decision, that buyer was boycotted bv the rest. Ho did not fear for' wool. Wool would he all right; hut ho was concerned about moat. It was being said now that Armour s won d help to raise the price of meat. Tt w not so. excent in the case of the laniXry neoolo. who sold stock "on , the r f P nf ” The buyer, were combined at the other end; what hope had t ie New Zealand producers unless thev also com ’inet o fake counter-measures? Wh.le Vestev’s had been pulling ’ own the price of moat to the Now Zealand Xlucor. the retail price of meat nt Home had been rising. The comlnnes oro noo-atin" to force down prices. The A,’7'”.?';;/,”" n.. Tinchers «Deoeh. 1 * . ,7 incorrect that the amount retailor nt TTome ""a ‘fact that ™ a %ii; nr tenpeneo profit: n-l'that "somebcily” to-day vns of Agriculture. Don. W. sible inquiry had d^ d, H market. Tim wMu 1 ensiled, a, one toise T '"' I rra mht be improved upon by T ' on , "XS also to other centre, in Emrbrad. The prospects were being ,0 Vr (l Fdie (Brnce) said that Armour’s r ,1 tn he regarded with disfavour in tlT n North Island, but the company had £n of leal benefit to farmers m the South.

HOSPITAL DISTRICTS The Minister of Health (Hon C. F Parr was asked yesterday by Mr R. M'Callum. whether, before, giving effect ?’ the recommendations contained in the report of the Hospitals he would- take some account o the wishes ~(■ the bodies concerned. Mr. M Callum cmrrmsfed that the Minister should have ■ of one of the two bodies in e'ich case, of the body to be extinguished or of the absorbing body. Mr Parr said that he did not feel disposed‘to pledge the ■ Department or the Government to any particular course of action in regard to those recommendations of the commission advocating that three hospital boards should bo absorbed by other bodies. It was suggested, he understood, that it should conclude the matter against absorption if ono of the two bodies objected. Mr. M'Callum -. No. if 'hey Ixith ol>jeeted. z Mr. Farr: f took it tnaf it was in his mind that tho consent of ly.'th should bo necessary. In any case it might happen that both ohioe'ed, and yet from the public point of view (hero was an overwhelming caw for absorption. The point mentioned would have Io be considered. however. If the. bnardjo absorb the other strongly objected the point wrnld certainly hove *o lw> consul.,,-,] .n.m»o» juoo. jo not'pi.nstuttnp'n atp joj