THE MEAT TRUSTS.

Taranaki Daily News, 28 October 1921, Page 7

THE MEAT TRUSTS.

MENACE TO NEW ZEALAND, OPPOSITION OF PRODUCERS. DISCUSSION AT PATEA. The danger of allowing the American meat trusts to get a hold in New Zealand. was commented on in strong terms by several of the shareholders at the adjourned annual meeting of the Patea Farmers’ Freezing Company on Wednesday. The matter was brought forward y the receipt of the following letter from Armour and Co.: —“As no doubt you are aware, we are taking throughout New Zealand a petition asking the Government to grant us an export license. We are asking not only farmers, but also farmers’ freezing companies, with whom we have done business or expect to do business, to sign this, and would consider it a favor if you would have the enclosed form signed as from your company. For your information we might add that other companies have done this, and as we are doing business with farmers’ companies only our reason for obtaining these signatures is to show the Minister for Agriculture that these companies are quite agreed that our operations could not be detrimental to their interests.”

The petition was headed as follows :- i—"We. the undersigned, consider that Armour and Company, of Australasia, Ltd., should be granted permission to export to any country meat now held at various freezing works, and should also be granted a meat export license, as we are of opinion that by not allowing them to carry on business in the open market, the competition for our produce is thereby restricted.” Mr. G. V. Pearce, in moving that the letter be received, said that propaganda was going on throughout New Zealand to permit Armour and Co. to get a footing in New Zealand, so that they could get a hold on New Zealand supplies. He had seen a letter stating that Armour and Co. were in Queensland. Swifts, another of the “Big Five,” had works in Queensland, and he believed an arrangement had been come to whereby Swifts were to get Queensland and Armours New Zealand. He outlined what had happened in the Argentine since the trust had got a hold there, and now held' GO per cent, of the freezing works. 4n arrangement had been come to as regarded price, and there was practically no opposition. The Argentine before the war received much more for their meat than New Zealand did, but during the war a contract had been made with the Imperial Government whereby they sold the meat for l/8d more than New Zealand. The reason of this was that the refrigerated ships were British, and were commandeered by the British Government. Part of the contract, however, provided that a certain proportion of their free meat should be shipped at the same time, and on this the trust made £30,000,000. Despite that the top price paid for bullocks in the Argentine was £l4, as against over £2O here. That was the position they would get New Zealand in. He was sure the Government was doing the right thing in refusing them permission to export. They could not be sure that the trust had not got a controlling interest in the shipping, and if they did they could make the prices what they liked. A lot of farmers only thought of getting a better price for a year or two, without thinking of the resulta if the trust got a firm hold here.

•Mr. Fryday, in seconding, stated that a director of another freezing company had sold his sheep to the meat trust because he got 2/6 per head more. It would pay the trusts to give a shilling or two more for a year or two if they could get a hold here.

Mr. Dickie said that they need not fear the operations of the meat trust at this end as long as the farmers controlled their own works. The danger was in the shipping and in London, where there were three trusts, viz., the American, the English and the Jewish —the latter two as dangerous ae the American. He thought the trusts were responsible for the high freights. He did not think it was sound business to refuse to grant an export license and yet allow them to purchase meat f.o.b. The meat trust was getting a big hold on the Smithfield market, and he instanced where they had given £76,000 for a weekly tenancy of a small shop. The resolution was carried.