MEAT PRICES

Auckland Star, Volume LXXIII, Issue 66, 19 March 1942, Page 8

MEAT PRICES

TRIBUNAL'S ORDER

REPLY TO MAGISTRATE

(By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, this day. The attitude adooted and the remarks made by Mr. E. C. Lewey, S.M„ in the Magistrate's Court in Christchurch, when some 28 butchers were prosecuted for charging higher prices for meat than those authorised by the meat price order, were considered at a sitting of the Price Tribunal in Wellington yesterday. Subsequently a statement was issued in which the Tribunal declared that it found it difficult to understand how any magistrate could make statements attributed to Mr. Levvey if he had carefully read the order in question. The Tribunal states that the price order was framed after discussion with the butchery trade interests, including the president and secretary of the New Zealand Master Butchers' Association, and definitely provided for the usual seasonal increases which it had always been the practice of butchers to make to enable them to recoup themselves for higher prices which they had to pay for livestock at a certain period of the year, due to additional costs of winter fattening.' The magistrate apparently did not understand that it was not the practice for butchers to alter their prices from day to day according to frequent changes in livestock prices, but onlv to increase them at certain times of the year in accordance with the general trend of livestock prices.

Losses Ultimately Offset. In accordance with this practice it might well be that, taking the price of a specific carcase, a butcher might temporarily show a loss, and this had always been the practice, but over the whole of the butcher's purchases and over the whole season any such losses were offset when livestock prrces were more favourable. It would appear that the magistrate s comment was based on figures submitted to him showing prices paid lor specific carcases or for pritcs paid over a limited period. Any argument so based was entirely fallacious. Recognition of the general principle of allowing seasonal increases and of requiring seasonal reductions in retail prices in accordance with normal seasonal variations in livestock prices had been accorded by the Price Tribunal ever since the outbreak of the war.'and it had been embodied not only in the price order under consideration but also in earlier price orders covering preceding seasons. Not only had this trade practice been carefully followed by the Price Tribunal in the current price order, but also the order provided that, if a temporary rise in the price of stock occurred in any district during the period of reduced prices, the prices for meat might be raised to meet the position. How any such price order could be regarded as being "dogmatic, fixed and inflexible" was incomprehensible. Attitude of Christchurch Rutohers In point of fact, it might be stated tnat the necessity for-a more comprehensive price order than those which previously operated arose largely from the attitude of Christchurch butchers—an attitude which had resulted in disregard not only of the current price order but also in disregard by them of an earlier decision of the tribunal. This disregard related back to an increase granted to butchers in the late part of 1939 on account of higher seasonal fat stock prices and which in certain centres was retained by butchers after the time when it should have been taken off This was more apparent in Christchurch than anywhere else as was evidenced by figures placed before butcners in consultation prior to issue of the order and not disputed oy them. The tribunal states that it regrets the magistrate's attitude, especial!v as other magistrates had intimated that they regarded breaches of the provisions of price orders in respect of a basic article of food such as meat as serious and had inflicted penalties in precisely similar cases up to £20. The tribunal considered that the price order as framed was fair and equitable.