MEAT POOL.

Taranaki Daily News, 12 January 1922, Page 8

MEAT POOL.

A SHEEP-OWNER’S EXPLANATION By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Jan. 11. Mr. H. D. Ackland, president of the Sheepowners’ Federation, made the following statement to-day:—“There appears to be considerable misapprehension as to the attitude of the New Zealand Sheepowners’ Federation at yesterday’s conference. We took the view that it was not right for the conference to give a blank cheque to any committee to deal with the business of the sheep fanner. We were yesterday asked to hand over the whole conduct or our meat trade to a committee without receiving any powers of subsequent criticism or revision of the scheme. The conference affirmed the principle of compulsion without knowing to what length compulsion was to be carried. We oppose any scheme which involves injustice to other sections of the community carrying on business in New Zealand under the law. At present 80 per cent, of New Zealand’s meat leaves the country as the property of the exporter. The conference was mainly destructive with reference to this aspect of the trade. The utterances of members of Parliament in the afternoon and evening showed that they were more in accord with .the views of the Sheepowners’ Federation than with those of the conference as a whole. We are of opinion that the committee wrll be compelled to formulate a scheme free from the abnoxious features that we object to. We also think that it is imperative that any scheme formulated should be submitted to the sheep-owners of New Zealand for their adoption. Our federation, which represents nearly 11,000,000 sheep, considers that this can be easily done through the post, a postal ballot through the medium of the sheep returns recently published, so that it can reach every sheep owner In New Zealand. Any conditions could be dispassionately considered and a true majority opinion secured. We further think that the proposals are too important and far-reaching to be disposed of by a- committee without reference to the great body of those interested.”

CONFLICTING VIEWS.

((Special Correspondent.) Wellington, Jan. 9. It probably would be difficult to find in the Dominion at the present time a producer or business man concerned in the producers’ activities whose views jn regard to the merits and demerits of the proposed meat pool are not in some measure colored by his own personal interests. Even the farmer who does not produce meat will eonsidwr what might happen, for good or for evil, were the principle of the pool applied to butter, and the business man who operates in neither meat nor butter will take into account how some commodity he does handle would be affected by a similar scheme. This being the case it js not surprising that many diverse and conflicting opinions upon the Government’s proposals are being expressed. The majority of the stock owners, judging from the resolutions adopted at meetings of their various organisations, are favorably disposed towards the pool. The majority of the business men, on the other hand, hold that it would be a verv experiment, and, whatever the outcome, would create an embarrassing precedent for the present or some future Government. A CONSIDERED OPINION. Referring to the position to-day. a business man, recently returned from the Old Country, where he had special opportunities. as on former occasions, to ascertain what was going on in the markets, said he entirely sympathised with Mr. Massey’s desire to lend a helping hand to the producers. Many of them were in an extremely hard place, so hard, indeed, that if left to their own unaided resources they inevitably would go to the wall. But the Government would have to move very warily if it were not going to do more harm than good by its intervention. There was nothing radically wrnnn- with the prices of meat at Home. At anv rate, do what the Prime Minister might, they would continue to be settled by the operation of fife law of supply and demand. But there was a •Treat' deal that might be done, both at this end and the other, towards reducing the cost of placing New Zealand products on the London market. This was the question upon which the Government should concentrate its attentlOn' REDUCTION OF CHARGES.

“I am "lad to notice,” this authority went on to say. “that Mr. Massey himself has come to recognise that it is the hi"h cost of delivering our meat to the consumer that is chiefly responsible for the existing 'state of affairs. M hen the Prime Minister first mentioned the subject in the House, just before the adjournment for the Christmas holidays. he seemed to have an idea in his head that it would be possible, by a simple resolution of Parliament, to alter the whole course of the meat trade. But he knows better than that n°w, and consequently is approaching his’ task with a clearer conception of its ma P n tude and a greater chance of success. He hopeP to have the assistance or th< commercial houses in carrying out his scheme as he did in the ease of the commandeer, and at the same time to leave the producers m f complete control. Tt is difficult to see how this is to be accomplished without making the taxpaver, responsible for very eons.derable expenditure, but the linancial aspects of tX nool cannot be intelligent v cUscussed v-itliout further , information than we have at present.” SOME FALLACIES. Alluding to the preliminary discusof the scheme, which he thought had been totally inadequate, tins openminded critic strongly deprecated the tendency he had noticed in several qunr- ™ to disparage the business mans share in the meat, trade. Certain membeis of Parliament, and even Ministers of the Crown other than Mr. Massey, 7rXZ to tile p o< t his X wed how utterly ‘injustified all this was and though such talk mtght be expected from the extreme .section of tlx Socialists, who looked for the m>l»n- -;,, n. in the nationalisation of all the cvintry’s industries, it was exceedingly ! I „.,st and was bearing it noy. im. i was’a time for frank co-operation in • reducing h? »v«y 021 ' ma ''

means, not for the creation of srispi’eion and distrust among the parties mutually interested jn the achievement of that goal.

NEW ZEALAND’S IMPORTANCE ON HOME MARKETS. A COMMANDING POSITION. Opponents of the proposed meat pool .scheme have frequently used the argument that the quantity of New Zealand meat placed on the London market Is so small in proportion to the total supply that action such as is suggested cannot possibly hope to make itself felt in regard to improved methods of marketing (says the Dominion). It has been specifically stated in a Christchurch paper by a gentleman interested in the export trade that “the total supplies of all New Zealand meat in relation to the consumption of meat in the Kingdom is a little over 5 per cent.” Other similar statements have appeared in various parts of the Dominion, and they tend to belittle our position as an exporting country in competition with the rest of he world.

According to the report of Weddell and Co. for 1920, New Zealand supplied the United Kingdom in that year with 10.65 per cent, of the total quantity of meat consumed there. The United Kingdom herself produced 56.09 per cent, of her total consumption (a little more than five times as much as New Zealand sent her). New Zealand’s proportion of the quantity sent to the United Kingdom from abroad was 24.25 per cent., virtually one quarter of the outside world’s supply.

These figures relate to all classes of meat—beef, veal, mutton and lamb. But New Zealand’s speciality is lamb and mutton, particularly lamb, and in the supply of these classes of meat she is far ahead of all competitors. In 1920 the Dominion provided Britain with practically 48 per cent, of her total importations of mutton and lamb, and 27 per cent, of her total consumption, including her own home-grown supplies.

This is a side of the question which the opponents of the scheme have not nut forward. Tt can be seen that the Nw Zealand output, particularly of lamb, does occupy a commanding position on the market, at Home. Incidentally it is a wonderful record for so small a country—small in comparison with its competitors—and'with so limited a population. The figures whch Weddel and Co. supply for the year 1920 are as follow:

Total consumption 1,281,282 571,186

Mutton Frozen — Beef. Tons. & lamb. Tons. Australia 41.849 112,994 New Zealand .... 43.549 153,756 Argentine 278,851 ‘ 39,141 Uruguay .. . .37.461 1,608 Brazil .... 17.068 — Patagonia 160 9,318 North America 18.201 415 South Africa .... 4,156 910 — Other countries 353 Chilled— Argentine 48.020 — Uruguay . . 2,705 — Foreign, fresh killed 162 2,911 Total importations into United Kingdom 493,092 320.396 Home grown (estimated) 788,190 250,790