MIRY PRODUCE.

Taranaki Daily News, 21 October 1921, Page 5

MIRY PRODUCE.

SYSTEM OF MARKETING. PROFITS MADE IN BRITAIN SHARP ATTACK IN THE HOUSE. The marketing of New Zealand produce in Britain was discussed in the House yesterday, when allegations were made that excessive profits were reaped in Britain out of the Dominion’s wool, meat, etc. A plea was made for a radical change in the method of marketing our produce at the other side of the world. The debate was followed by an important statement by the Prime Minister, in which he said he was hopeful that the wool market would soon become normal again. By Telegraph.—Press Association. i Wellington, Last Night. An interesting discussion on the marketing of New Zealand produce took place in the House to-day, when the Imprest Supply Bill was brought down. Mr. T. M. Wilford (Leader of the Opposition) proceeded to criticise the prices received for our produce compared with the price paid in Britain. No effort, be said, had been made to check the profiteering which had been going on. He quoted from the London Times to show that the profits on our wool alone ranged from 300 to 400 per cent. The profits made out of our meat were also excessive, so much so that the authorities in England were subsidising home-killed meat from the profits made out of imported meat. He asked what had our High Commissioner been doing to .permit this state of things to pass unnoticed. Further quotations were made from English and Scottish papers to show that our wool was being kept at abnormally high prices, and he asked: Is Great Britain dealing detrimentally with this country so far as the marketing of our produce is concerned? That was what he wanted to know. Sentiment did not come into the marketing of produce; that should be disposed of on strict business lines, and he wanted the Premier to tell the people of New Zealand whether they were getting a fair deal at the other end. He did not think so. Further, he believed that if our producers got a fair share of the prices realised in England this country would weather the financial storm all right; but if things were as he believed they were, then a radical change must be made in the method of marketing pur produce at the other side of the world. WEALTH FROM PRODUCE. The Hon. W. Nosworthy (Minister of Agriculture) said the fact was that most of our produce in recent years was bought by the Imperial Government, and the prices paid were the prices agreed upon with the New Zealand Government. After that the New Zealand Government had no say in the matter. If the Imperial Government mishandled produce after it came into their possession that was their concern, and he could not express an opinion on that point. .

The prices received for our wool and other produce were such as enabled us to pay our share of the war, put away surpluses, and raise loans in a manner that was a perfect revelation to everybody. Before the war no one would have believed our internal resources were anything like what they proved to be. In any case, the point was that whatever price the British Government got for New Zealand wool, it was theirs to sell for whatever they could get for it. Had there been more business ability at the other ■end matters might have been managed differently, but for that the New Zealand Government was not responsible.

Dr. H. T. Thacker (Christchurch East) denied that the British coipmandeer of our produce was complete. Much of our produce was never sold to the Imperial authorities, and he complained that there were “preference purchasers”r-friends of the Government—who got it. Mr. Massey: “I give that an emphatic denial.” Dr. Thacker: “I don’t care whether you give it a hundred emphatic denials; I am stating facts.” THE LONDON OFFICE. Continuing, he said one of our troubles was that no one in the High Commissioner’s office knew anything about our produce, and some of them scarcely knew where- New Zealand was. The High Commissioner should go and see the British Premier, and see that our produce received justice. Our meat at least should not be sold below a fixed minimum price. Mr. G. W. Forbes (Hurunui) declared that, farmers would now lose more in low prices than ever they gained by high prices during the war. He was satisfied there had been' great mismanagement at the other end, and it was going on. now. Stale meat was being pushed on to the market, much to the detriment of New Zealand, as there was nothing to show that it was stale stock. The reputation of our produce suffered - in consequence, and he did not agree with the Minister of Agriculture that this was none of our business. It was our business to see that our produce was properly marketed, and he thought representations should be made to the British authorities on the subject; otherwise our good name would disappear. Mr. Massey interjected that there was very little stale meat on the London market when he left England. Mr. Forbes said that assurance was satisfactory, but evidently much required to be done in connection with the marketing of our produce. Mr. G. Witty (Riccarton) thought that better prices would be obtained for our produce if it were not for the shipping monopoly. THE DISPOSAL OF MEAT. Mr. Massey gave the statement that the British commandeer was not complete an ( absolute denial; every pound of wool and meat that left New Zealand during the course of the commandeer went to the Imperial authorities. . He did not agree with all that was done by them, but there was the fact that the meat belonged to them and went to them, and no friend of the Government got preference. On the subject of marketing our produce, he agreed that something more might be done. The officers in the High Commissioner’s office might not be quite so closely in touch tvith New Zealand as they should be, and he made suggestions to overcome the difficulty. He quoted a letter he sent to British Ministers on the subject of the unfair treatment of New Zealand produce, to show that he had not neglected to drew attention to the matter.

Continuing, he said that while he re r apeeted the business men of London, he

did not think we were wise in continuing to send all our meat to that centre. There were other ports willing and anxious to get a share of our produce, and he hoped that our importers would realise this and make use of ports outside London which served large and dense populations. These places got our meat now, but it had to be carried to them on railways, and his experience was that our meat suffered more on British railways than anywhere else. GOOD OUTLOOK FOR WOOL. Mr. Massey then dealt with the decline in the world’s flocks, and the decline in the purchasing power of some of our best wool customers. He also mentioned the disinclination of American buyers to purchase wool. This arose from uncertainty concerning the tariff, and so soon as thia was settled America would again be a large buyer of our wool, which would help us considerably. Bradford also was not buying largely, because manufacturers did not know the day when the British Government would unload the large stocks of wool held by them, and they were afraid to buy freely until it was known what was to be done with the Government-owned wool. The amount of wool held was not nearly so large as many supposed; he believed they held no more than one year’s New Zealand clip. The position of the market in Europe was next dealt with, and the Premier concluded with an assurance that he did’ not consider the wool position by any means hopeless, and he was hopeful that it would soon again become normal.

Mr. Lysnar urged a change in the produce officers in the High Commissioner’s office. He said the information supplied by them was not reliable, and the thing fanners were yearning for was reliable information. The Hon. W. Nosworthy claimed that the market information now supplied by the High Commissioner’s office was vastly more illuminating than had previously beta the «aw.