MEAT POOL.

Hokitika Guardian, 11 January 1922, Page 1

MEAT POOL.

GRADING AND COMPULSION

[BY TELEOItAPH —I*lilt PItESS ASSOCIATION]

WELLINGTON, January 10,

At the meeting in connection with the meat pool, on the conclusion of Mr Massey’s speech, some questions were asked.

Mr J. C. N. Grigg, asked what form the compulsory pool was going to take. Another delegate asked how was it possible to have grading with so many different types of sheep. The Prime Minister said that each district would be graded according to its class and there would be no such thing a s Auckland coming into contact with Canterbury in meat supplies. There was no intention of breaking unv contraota. Ttv Mr Grigg, Mr Massey replied that it was intended that the pool should he. compulsory, lie doubted whether it would be possible to make it compulsory during the present season.

i To Mr Campbell, the Prime Minister said that it would be necessary to put a Government brand on the meat.

. To Mr D. H. Ackland, the Prime ; Minister exj/lained the scheme had no i question of party politics in the mat ter. The Board at this end would deal with grading, shipping, and handling The Board at the other end would look after the market. It was the greatest nonsense in the world to say that i New Zealand meat was only a drop in the bucket. New Zealand exported move- mutton and lamb than any other i count,y in the world. In eight years New Zealand had sent nearly 20,000,000 carouses, out of the total 45,000,000 imported into Great Britain. • Mr G. V. Pearce raised another question. regarding grading. Be asked was it proposed to do away with all the present brands. Mr Nosworthy said that it was never intended* to db away with the brands All the present promoters of the pool would sec that all meat was graded on i the highest standard, and good business methods would not. bo interfered with.

In reply to a question regarding the personnel of the Board. Mr Massey, announced that that was a matter for the producers to decide. (Applause). The producers, he said, would select the Board. (Hear, hear). They could he quite sure on that point. Mr Massey’s statement was apparently received with great satisfaction

from the producers. Mr T. Duncan (Taieri, Otago) then submitted the following motion: (1) “That this meeting of New Zealand producers recognise the necessity of a national scheme for the market ing of New Zealand meat, and supports the principle of a compulsory pool.

I I (2) “That a Committee be appoint[ed to investigate tbe possibility and J advisability of bringing this scheme, | either wholly or partly into operation during the present season.” WAR MARKET RIGGED? Tn seconding the motion, Mr W. Perry (Masterton) referred to the rapi id fall in prices of a few months ago ■ as compared with the present rise. It . looked to him as if the prices had been j artificially dropped, hut the people rej sponsible had evidently thought it j wiser to raise them again. There were I risks to run, continued Mr Perry, but a capable Board would h'e able to ' handle tbe matter carefully. ' On tbe question of lightweight lamb and mutton, Mr Perry said he thought there wfls something behind the raising the prices recently fbr heavier j weights. j Mr G. V. Pearce challenged the , statement that the market had been j “rigged.” He said the glut was due to a lack of organisation among the freezing companion. j Mr Pearce said that there had been .some question of regula|tSng prices, and they must proceed very carefully. A lack of disinterested advice at the meat market was another reason for tbe establishment of a pool. At the present time tbe producers bad nobody to advise them, and if they had a Board of three , men in London, thousands of pounds might be saved weekly. Mr Gascoyne (Hawke’s Bay) proposed the following amendment: “That this meeting of the producers, I while willing to assist the Government in every way in this matter, is not in favour of compulsion in any

way.” Mr Grigg (Canterbury) seconded tlio amendment. Mr Massey explained that he accepted the amendment, because it dealt only with the compulsory principle of tbe pool proposal, which, of course was an important part of the

scheme. Mr Dunfield (Waikato) expressed regret that the proposal did not go half far enough and .also disappointment- that the business was not proposed to be Handled by the producers themselves. It was still to be handled by the very men Who had landed the farmer in tile present predicament. He hoped that the producers would notstop half way in the proposals. Mr Grigg said he considered that there was evidence that the scheme as originally proposed, was to be modified.

Voices: “No!” It was uncertain what return the producers would receive if they embarked upon this scheme, which he considered wag only a “half-baked” one, and it therefore had no chance of success. He doubted whether it would be possible to start tbe scheme successfully at the present stage of the sear son. Particular attention should be diverted to considering the powers of. the Board of Control. , Sir Walter Buchanan then read the amendment which he proposed to move in place of fife proposal that a committee be appointed to investigate the possibility and advisability of bringing

the scheme, either wholly or partly, into operation driring the present season. His amendment was:—“That a Committee should 'be appointed- to bring the scheme either wholly or partly into operation during the present season. (Hear, hear). ANTI-POOL AMENDMENT LOST.

On being put too a vote, Ml G*acoyne’s amendment was defeated on the voices, by -an overwhelming, majority. , - Sir \t. Buchanan’s amendment was accepted by the mover as the principal motion.

Mr Tripp, then moved an amendment mat the Committee should revport on the advisability of compulsory selling pool, and in the meantime, that there should be a compulsory works pool. This was lost on the voices. 'Hie meeting, is proceeding.

MR. MASSEY’S SPEECH. WELLINGTON, January 10. It was a thoroughly representative conference to-day that discussed the meat pool scheme proposed by the Government. Mr Massey presided, and Messrs Noeworthy, Lee, Guthrie and Coates were present also representatives of the Far mers’ Union, the Council of Agriculture. and the Sheepowners’ Assooiation. Mr Massey said they intended to go on with the scheme. There was opposition but despite opposition, they were going on with the scheme. The Government had put its hands to the plough, and intended to go on. He bad ""received very encouraging cables from the other side of the world, specially from Manchester. A special company had, been floated there to deal with New Zealand produce and relieve the New Zealand Government of all advances on produce. Hull had also put in a claim. The Prime Minister said he was glad to see that the opposition had a humorous side. Fancy the New Zealand Government being accused of .Socialism! There was nothing Socialistic m these proposals. ‘ They were co-opera-1, ivo. and were not intended to establish another Government Department

“This will be a producers organisation,” he said, “and nothing more.” He did not 'think it would he too much for the Government to insist upon representation on the boards to be established in New Zealand and in Groat Britain. The Government would stand behind the scheme in the matter of finance. It was surely entitled to representation. It was ridiculous to assert that the South Island Freezing Works were going to suffer, as compared with the North Island Works. The only works to suffer would be those controlled by the exploiters. He urged the necessity of much stricter grading. No doubt improvement had to be effected in the quality of thbir frozen meat sent home. Much stricter gliding was necessary to prevent inferior meat going on to the British market. This could only he done by such a scheme, as was now proposed. A Board was necessary at home to remove the prejudice that undoubtedly existed in some parts of England against New Zealand meat. The Board was also necessary to put a check on some of the adverse competition that took place in the sale of our meat. No doubt the meat trade was suffering from a want of organisation. This pool would tend to benefit it. A resolution agreeing to setting up a pool organisation he had no doubt would be carried. There was a sort of general idea that the whole of the freezing companies were against them. That was not so. Some companies were against a pooling scheme, but. the interests of the companies and the producers were identical. They should agree to work together. He believed that every section of the community should be given ■ its fair section of the earnings of the community; but up to the present, the meat producers had not received their fair share. It was proposed to set up one Board of control in London and one in New Zealand. It was important to prevent an over supply of meat at the other end. It- was not suggested that they should do something to improperly increase prices at home. That was not the Government’s intention at all. The Government wanted to see that the supply of meat going to the other end was regulated in such a way as to be fair to the producers. Mr G. V. Pearce (Patea): “Do you suggest the Board selling in Tiondbn? Mr Massey: “The Board will control.” the decision. Eventually a motion was passed in the following terms, being moved by Mr T. Dtincan, Taieri: (1) That this meeting of New Zealand producers recognises the necessity of national scheme for the marketing of New Zealand meat, and supports the principle of the compulsory pool. (2) That a committee be; appointed to bring this scheme, either wholly or partly, into operation during the present season. •A further meeting is being held tonight to consider the details. HOME FARMERS OBJECT. LONDON, January 9. A large meeting of Smithfield tenants interested in the Colonial meat trade adopted a. resolution protesting against the New Zealand proposals, on the ground that in their opinion, from experiences during the war, all forms of Government control are wasteful and against the best interests of both the producer and consumer.