PRICE FIXATION POLICY

Press, Volume LXXXI, Issue 24592, 14 June 1945, Page 4

PRICE FIXATION POLICY

VIEWS s 6f'MH JAMES THORN, M.P. * '' “ The Press" Special Service WELLINGTON, June 13. "The application of a price onJer to Christchurch In the interests of the, consumers is merely an ' price fixation policy which hasoWalned In Wellington and Auckland for _some considerable time, said Mr James Thorn, Parliamentary under-Secrctary to- the Prime Minister, who was chairman of Sea Wsheries investigation Conmlttee, lu a letter to the editor of the Dominion to-day. “The order reduced price# to th« consumer and so gave them some protec' tlon against the vagaries of the auction system, end it remains for both flshermen and retailers to accommodate themselves to the public interest." Mr Thom’s letter said:- .... "In its report, the committee recoinmended that only fishermen be Ucensed. The m«l» purpose of this was to ensure that the fish population In our waters would be conserved. The fishermen were unanimous that licensing was essential to the future security of the industry. "In evidence, many of the retailers and wholesalers urged that they also should be covered by a licensing system, but there was no recommendation by the committee that this should be done. Subsequently representatives both reteilers and wholesalers requested the Minister of industries and Commerce to brlng them within a plan under the Industrial Efficiency Act. On their assurance that such a plan was necessary for the welfare of the industry, and would cause no, trouble, the Minister agreed, and it was only for this" reason that licensing was applied v> these two sections of the industry. The plan that was in preparation was, ever,* suspended af the outbreak of the war "Whatever may be thought of licensing, it cannot be condemned as having prejudicially affected the supply. If the catch has fallen, this Is due to the withdrawal of the most efficient catching units from the Halting fleet for service in the jravy, ■ "The following figures of the annual catch in cwte over tha whole Dominion since the Introduction of licensing will indicate the actual position 41, 328,594;>1941-42, 326,863; 1942-43, 311.971: 1943-44. 294,445. x . „ . ■“ln view of the effect on production of requirements by the Navy on the fishing fleet, it is amazing that the catch has bean As the fall In the catch, there bps, however been a decline In the export of fish from the Dominion. In 163?the tatai exported was 35.259cwtf in 1943-44 It was 16.438cwt. Hence there Is little difference between the Ash 'available to the consuming public in the first year of licensing and this present year, and it is a fact that the proportion of the catch now consumed in New Zealand is greater than it was eight to 10 years ago, when .there was no licensing. Licensing at Lyttelton "That licensing of the fishermen In Lyttelton, where they are refusing to operate under the price order, has haa np detrimental effect on the catch is clear from the following statistics in ewts. the year ending at March 31;-—1M8-40.10,5«: 1940-41, 13,801; 1941-42.-14,287; 1942-43. 16,504; 1943-44, 14,090; 1944 to December 31, 10.221. “Last year in Lyttelton the! catch was roughly 5700cwt more than it was in the first year of licensing. Your readers may draw their own deductions. ‘‘lt IS' Interesting to note that the declared value of fire Lyttelton catch in 1839-40 was £17,513,- or roughly £1 14; per cwt; In 1944, It was £42,027, or £2 I2s per cwt. In Christchurch, the Lyttelton catch la sold by,auction, and the rise in the value per cw|t Is due to the operation of this system iunder the, extraordinary conditions created by the war. by which spending power has been increased and the demand for fish,has grown because meat has been rationed. The re* oent cut in tire meat ration would certainly have caused another rise in fish prices if these were uncontrolled, and this Is obviously undesirable."