THE MEAT POOL.

Taranaki Daily News, 11 January 1922, Page 8

THE MEAT POOL.

APPROVED BY PRODUCERS. DECISION OF THE CONFERENCE. OVERWHELMING MAJORITY. PREMIER’S DEFINITE SUPPORT. (By Wire.—Own Correspondent.) Wellington, Last Night. More than one hundred, delegates, representing the producers of meat throughout New Zealand, attended the conference in Wellington to-day to consider the meat pool scheme. The Minister had asked farmers’ organisations in various districts to join in selecting representatives and the response had been ready in all parts of the Dominion. The organisations that were directly represented included the Board of Agriculture, the Council of Agriculture. the Producers’ Committee, the executive of the Farmers’ Union and the Sheep-owners’ Federation. Th-' conference after an all day discussion. approved of the principle of a compulsory poo] by an overwhelming majority. Most of the delegates were enthusiastic in their support of the scheme. The minority seemed, to consist chiefly of representatives of the Sheep-owners’ Federation, and of one or two other Canterbury delegates. Mr. H. D. Jkcland, for the Sheep-owners’ Federation, asked several times for details of the scheme, but the conference as a whole evidently was prepared to endorse the principle of the pool and. leave details to be worked out by th« committee that was set up to act with the existing Parliamentary committee. A feature of the proceedings was the unqualified support given to the scheme by the Prime Minister, who declared roundly: “We have put our hand to the plough and we are going on. It does not matter what the opposition may be, we are going on. It is just as well to mention that now, lest th'ere should be any misapprehension about the attitude of the Government and of Parliament.”

DETAILS OF SCHEME. OUTLINE BY THE PREMIER. REASON FOR THE POOL. GOVERNMENT’S SUPPORT. By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyrisfct. Wellington, Last Night. The meat pool conference commenced this ' morning, Mr. Massey presiding, supported by Mr. Nos worthy, Minister of Agriculture, and the members of the Parliamentary committee who framed the scheme.

Mr. Massey proceeded to explain the genesis of the meat pool scheme, largely on the lines of his previous speeches in Parliament. Before the war producers rereceived 80 per cent, of the London price for their meat, but until advances were made recently the proportion received was 52 per cent. We have put our hands to the plough and are hot going back. It doesn’t matter what opposition there may be. Mr. Massey referred to economies which should be made in loading costs. Arrangements ought to be made for a ship to obtain cargo at two, certainly not more than three, ports. There were thirty or forty ships lying idle in New Zealand. Some should be insulated and used to carry meat from the smaller to the larger ports. Improvements had been made since the scheme had been under discussion. He had a cable from the High Commissioner advising that the glut in the London meat stores was now ended, and all the meat ships were now being discharged. The Port of London Authority gave an assurance that a glut was unlikely to occur again.

Other improvements were increases in the price of meat and a reduction in freezing costs. Offers of assistance had been received from Hull and Manchester, including offers to finance advances on shipments to Manchester. There was nothing socialistic in the proposals, which were cooperative. It was the duty of the Government to assist industries on which their prosperity depended. New Zealand meat should be better advertised in the English 'market. There should be more attention paid to grading, especially to keep inferior meat off the market. Britain had abandoned her old free trade policy and now gave preference to products of the British Dominions. He believed it would be to the advantage of Britain to give a small preference on meat.

NEED FOR ORGANISATION. The Prime Minister said he had received very encouraging cables from the other side of the world, especially from Manchester, while 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 in the proposals: they were co-opera-tive. It was not intended to establish another Government department. “This will be a producers’ organisation,’’ he said, “and nothing more.’’ He did .not think it would be too much for the Government to insist upon representation on the boards to be established in New Zealand and in Great Britain. The Government would stand behind the scheme in the matter of finance, and wa» surely entitled to representation.

It was ridiculous to assert that the South Island freezing works were going lb suffer compared with The North Island works. The only works to suffer would be those controlled by exploiters, He urged the necessity for much stricter grading. There was no doubt that Improvements Jjgd to be effected in the quality of the frozen nieat sent Home. Much stricter grading was necessary to prevent inferior meat going on to the British market, and this t?ou]d only be done by such a scheme was now pro posed. A board was necessary at Home to remove the prejudice that undoubtedly existed in some parts of England against New Zealand meat, and the board was also necessary to check some of the adverse competition thgt took place in the sale of our meat.. There was no doubt the meat trade was suffering from want of organisation, and this pool would tend to benefit it in this connection.

IVJassey said a resolution would be to th® setting up

of a pool organisation, and ho had no doubt but that it would be carried. There was a sort of general idea that the whole freezing companies were against them. That was not so. Some of the companies were against a pooling scheme, but the interests of the companies and the producers were identical, and 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.

REGULATION OF SUPPLY. Briefly detailing the functions of the two boards of control which it was proposed to set up, one m London and one in New. Zealand, Mr. Massey said 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 the price 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 London? Mr. Massey: The board will control.

Replying to questions, Mr. Massey said each district would be graded according to the class of meat produced. Each freezing works would have its own subsidiary pool. A pool couldn’t be satisfactory unless compulsory, but it was a matter for settlement by the committee whether the scheme would go that far this season and whether compulsory powers would need to be exercised. Established brands would not be interfered with..

Mr. Jones, chairman of the Parliamentary Committee, said there were numbers of points upon which they were in agreement with the freezing and shipping companies. He instanced the elimination of marks covering small lots, the prevention of over-loading the London market and over• shipments from New Zealand. It was recognised by all the parties interested that sane control was essential.

Mr. Massey, in reply to a question, said stock agents and exporters would be invited to confer with the producers’ committee. They were satisfied with existing channels of distribution.

THE DISCUSSION. MORE DETAILS FROM PREMIER. CONTROL PRODUCERS’ HANDS. DUTIES OF THE BOARDS. Wellington, Last Night. At the conclusion of Mr. Massey’s speech at the meat pool conference 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 each district would be graded according to its class and there would be no such thing as Auckland, coming into contact with Canterbury in meat supplies. There was no intention of breaking any contracts.

To Mr. Grigg, Mr. Massey replied that it was intended that the pool should, be compulsory. He doubted whether it would be possible to make it compulsory during the present season. To Mr. Ewen Campbell the Prime Minister said it would be necessary to put the Government brand on meat. To Mr. H. D. Aeland, the Prime Minister explained the scheme in clearer outline. There was no question of party politics in the nia<tter. The board at this end would deal with grading, shipping and handling and the board at the other end would look after the market. It was the greatest nonsense in the world to say that New Zealand meat was only a drop in the bucket. New Zealand exported more mutton and lamb than any other country in the world. In eight years New Zealand sent nearly twenty million carcases • out of forty-five million imported into Great Britain.

QUESTION OF GRADING. Mr. G. V. Pearce raised another question regarding grading. Was it proposed to do away with all the present brands ? The Hon. W. Nosworthy said it was never intended to do away with any brands, and all the present brands would be retained. The promoters of the pool would see that all meat was graded on the highest standard and good business methods would not be interfered with.

In reply to a question regarding the personnel of the board, Mr. Massey announced that this was a matter for the producers to decide. (Applause.) The producers would select the board. (Hear, hear.) It was to be a Government board; they could be quite sure on that point. Mr. Massey’s statement was apparently received with great satisfaction by the producers. Mr. T. Duncan (Taieri) submitted the following motion: “(1) That this meeting of New Zealand producers recognises the necessity of a national scheme for marketing New Zealand meat and supports the principle of a compulsory pool; (2) that a committee be appointed to investigate the possibility and advisability of bringing this scheme, either wholly or partly, into operation during the present season.” In seconding the motion, Mr. W. Perry (Masterton) referred to the rapid fall in prices a’ few months ago as compared with the present rise. It looked to him as if prices had been artificially dropped, but the people re=pon sible had evidently thought it wiser to raise them again. There were risks to run, continued Mr. Perry, but a capable board would be able to handle the matter carefully. On the question of lightweight iamb and mutton Mr. Perry said he' thought there was something behind the raising of the price recently for heavier weights,

ADVANCE IN LONDON. Mr. G. V. Pearce challenged, the statement that rhe market had been “rigged,” The glut was due to lack of organisation among the freezing companies. Mr. Pearce said that thei-e had been some question of regulating primps and they must proceed very carefully. Lack of disinterested advice as to the meat market was another reason for the establishment of a pool. At the present time the producers had nobody to advise them and if they had a board of three men in London thousands of pounds might be saved weekly. Mr. Gascoigne (Hawke’s Bay) proposed the following amendment: “That this mseting ©f producers, while will-

ing to assist the Government in every way in this matter, is not in favor of compulsion in any way.” Mr. Grigg (Canterbury) seconded the amendment. Mr. Massey explained that he accepted the amendment, because it dealt only with the compulsory principle of the pool proposal, which of course was ao important part of the scheme.

Mr. Dunfield (Waikato) expressed regret that the proposal .did not go half far enough, and 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 landed the farmer in the present predicament. He hoped the producers would not stop half-way in the proposals. K A HALF-BAKED SCHEME.”

Mr. Grigg considered that there was evidence that the scheme as originally proposed was to be modified. (Voices: “No”). It was uncertain what return the producer would secure if they embarked Upon the scheme, which he considered was “half baked,” and therefore had no chance of success. He doubted whether it would be possible to start the scheme successfully at the present stage of the season. Particular attention 'should be devoted to considering the powers of the board of control.

Sir Walter Buchanan- read an amendment that “ a committee should be appointed to bring the scheme either wholly or partly in operation during the present season.” (Hear, hear.) On being put to the vote Mr. Gascoigne’s amendment was defeated on the voices by an overwhelming majority and Sir Walter Buchanan’s amendment was accepted by the mover as the principal motion. Mr. Tripp then moved an amend-, ment that a committee should report on the advisability of a compulsory selling pool, and in the meantime there should .be a compulsory works pool. This was lost on the voices.

Eventually a motion was passed in the following terms, moved by Mr. T. Duncan (Taieri): “(1) That this meeting of New Zealand producers recognises the necessity of a national Sfcheme for the market [ng of New Zealand meat and supports the principle of a compulsory pool; (2) that ft committee be appointed to bring this scheme, either wholly or partly-, into operation during the present seasoh.” A further meeting was held to-night to consider details.

PERSONNEL OF COMMITTEE. In the evening the following committee of fourteen was appointed to act in conjunction with the Parliamentary committee in appointing the New Zealand and London board-s and arranging the inception of scheme: North Island: Messrs. W. Polson, Jas. Jessop, Wm. Perry, T. W. Duncan, H. B. Williams, George Pearce, A. E. Harding. South Island: Messrs. J. Begg, A. J. Murray, J. C. N. Grigg, E. Bowman, J. C. Cooper, D. G; Wright, E. P. Burbury A motion moved by Mr. Lyspar suggesting a levy of 5 per cent, on advances till each had paid £lOO for every 250 sheep owned, according to the official sheep list, to finance the pool, was lost by an overwhelming majority.

After considerable discussion a motion by Mr. Mathieson stating that if the Government offers a financial guarantee security should be given the Government by the producers benefiting was also lost, the matter of finance being left to the joint committees.

Mr. D. Jones moved: “That this meeting recommend that the representatives present, wait upon the freezing companies in their respective district* requesting them to voluntarily join the poo! and make arrangements accordingly.” They must, he stated, make it very clear that the interests of the freezing, companies would be only considered.

After a lengthy discussion Mr. Anderson objected to the motion, which simply stultified the resolution favoring a compulsory pool. Mr. Jones explained that he meant them to ask the farmers and freezing companies of their districts to join the pool voluntarily at once without waiting two or three weeks for compulsory legislation.

The motion was carried with a rew dissentients.

Enthusiastic votes of thanks were accorded the Premier and the Government advisory committee and the Minister of Agriculture, and the conference closed with an announcement that the new committee would meet on Wednesday morning.

FEELING IN LONDON. SMITHFIELD OPPOSITION. By Telegraph.—Tress Assn —Copyright. Received Jan. 10, 5.5 p.m. London, Jan. 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 the producers and the consumer.—Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn.