The Taihape Daily Times MONDAY, OCTOBER 2nd, 1916. NEW ZEALAND MEAT.

Taihape Daily Times, Issue 202, 2 October 1916, Page 4

The Taihape Daily Times

MONDAY, OCTOBER 2nd, 1916. NEW ZEALAND MEAT.

AMD WAIMAKINO ADVOCATE (With which ia incorporated The Tai hapw Post and Waimarino News.)

The long deferred and much overdue explanation from Sir Thomas Mackenzie on the unsatisfactory and disappointing marketing of New Zealand meat came to hand on Friday. Sir Thomas was under a dual obligation to report on this subject, firstly, as a member of the Sales Committee, and secondly, as the High Commissioner for this country in Great Britain. That the report will carry little weight for improvement is obvious, for it is nor free from impatience. Sir Thomas seems annoyed that meat growers in his own country should complain at Argentine meat bringing its growers two pence half penny a pound more than theirs; he is not very complimentary to their intelligence in telling them that when their meat is sold it is the property of the buyers, and he takes it for granted that this misapprehension is the root of all the trouble. We would hasten to let Mr. Mackenzie know that there is no such misapprehension. New Zealanders know that they agreed to sell to the British Government for the use of the army, and although there might not have been a word in the contract stating this, the implification is so strong that words could not have discoverer? the object of the sale more plainly or definitely. Surely, Sir Thomas does not contend that our meat was commandeered to be handed over to anybody, even to members of the American Meat Trust, at pence per pound less than the Trust’s controlled South

American meat. We want our arrangement with the Imperial authorities interpreted in a common-sense way. What we most desire to know is why our high-class lamb, which the authorities do not require is sold at 2id. per pound less than Argentine. This question is only answered in what we have no choice but to regard as an evasive way. He says, New Zealanders did not clearly realise that when their meat was sold it became the property of the buyers. In other words, it was quite legitimate for the Board of Trade to hand it over without any addition to the price they took it at, to the Sales Committee, composed of Sir Thomas and two members of the American Meat Trust, who distribute it among their shops at two pence half-penny per pound less than Argentine. We refuse to believe that the Imperial authorities have fixed the wholesale price of New Zealand meat at pence per pound lower than that from other countries; that they are penalising the men in this country for patriotically agreeing to all their meat being taken for Army purposes at a fixed price. We have Sir Thomas Mackenzie’s report, which was published by Mr Massey in December, 1915; that report distinctly says that any meat not required by the Government for Army purposes shall go into the ordinary marketing channels, just as though no commandeering had taken place, not in these exact words, but of their full intent. Now Sir Thomas says that New Zealand meat growers do not know what they are talking about; they do not realise that when their meat is sold it becomes the property of the buyers. It would be interesting to know when Sir Thomas considers the meat sold, whether as Indicated in his 1915 report, or as may be gathered from his report received last Friday? Is surplus, meat, meat we know the authorities do not require for the soldiery, sold off the hooks in New Zealand; when it is -handed to the Sales Committee, or when it is parted with to retailers? With this information it might be easier to ascertain where the huge intermediate profits went to. Sir Thomas does give some information . on this when he says that the wholesale price of New Zealand meat was fixed by the Board of Trade, while British, Argentine, and other meat had not been interefered with; that the low price of New Zealand meat enabled retailers to pay more for Argentine and other meat. Sir Thomas has been a party to New Zealand meat being used for this purpose for two years, and has done notning to end such a flagrant injustice. What New Zealand meat growers wilr want to know is, why did not our High Commissioner, who is also a member of the Sales Committee, and, therefore, 'cannot plead ignorance, report in 1915 that surplus meat would go through ordinary marketing channels just as though not commandeered, when he must have known what was happening; he cannot have underestimated the importance of such information to our farmers, and to the whole country, and he must have -known that New Zealand farmers would have at once ended any system of exploitation for which they were the chief sufferers and their meat the chief means. B'ut worse, Sir Thomas gives certain alternatives which are not couched in the happiest phraseology. They would be understandable from the counsel for the defence, but scarcely so from our Commissioner. His first suggestion of change seems to be a contradiction of the statement that when the meat was sold it became the property of the buyer, for he says the New Zealand producer might make up his mind to sell outright to the Home authorities and accept the subsequent fate of his meat. Sir Thomas Mackenzie tells us that is just what is being done now, when he says that when the meat is sold it belongs to the buyer, meaning a price has been paid by thb Government, and there the meat grower’s interest ends. Or, he says, it could be sent Home on consignment, and all surplus placed on the open market. But then, this latter case, Sir Thomas says, there is the bogey of shipping. It seems that New Zealanders are “between the deil and the blue deep” in this meat business. If they elect to send it Home giving the authorities the option to take all that was required for army purposes, i all surplus being put on the open mar--1 ket, the meat might be left to rot in freezing storage for lack of shipping; if they sell outright to the authorities they have to accept the subsequent fate of their meat, and if they continue present arrangements they are to be the tool of exploiters. We would have been glad to learn from our High Commissioner why this uncomplimentary, degrading, insulting position should be forced on New Zealand meat growers, and on no other meat grower in the 1 Empire or in the world