RETAIL MEAT PRICES

Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25607, 23 September 1948, Page 4

RETAIL MEAT PRICES

MASTER BUTCHERS’ STATEMENT

REPLY TO JUDGE HUNTER (P.A.) WELLINGTON, Sept. 22. Criticising reported statements by the President of the Price Tribunal (Judge Hunter), the New Zealand Master Butchers’ Federation said this afternoon that his statement must at best be termed evasive. It was an attempt to place the blame for a muddle on shoulders other than those of the tribunal. References to a lack of information and to details of the amendments to the price order sought by the federation were associated with requests made by the tribunal during the present month. "The crux of the question,” said the federation, “is the unwillingness of the authorities to attempt to stabilise or control the purchase price of meat or livestock while continuing an inflexible system of retail price control in the interests of the policy of stabilisation. The Government was apparently unwilling to assume responsibility for such action and passed the responsibiity of a decision to the commission of inquiry into fresh meat supplies. The commission in turn politely passed the responsibility to, the Price Tribunal which, faced with threats of a crisis in the meat trade and other affected quarters, has been galvanised into lastminute activity, but only when a stage was reached which clearly indicated that the position would not right itself of its own accord.”

The federation said that Judge Hunter was correct in saying that the organisation was notified, when the initial application was lodged a year ago, that accounts and information would be required from a representative cross-section of master butchers, but he omitted to say that the tribunal did not call for those accounts until the beginning of the present month. Year’s Delay Alleged “That is to say the tribunal did this a year later, in spite of written requests from the federation, which asked members by circular in September. 1947, that financial accounts and relevant data should be made available to the tribunal and asked in January and March this year for an investigation of the accounts to be proceeded with so that the information required by the tribunal would be available without further delay,” said the statement. The federation said that the requests were refused on the ground that Do good purpose would be served if the Price Control Division did work which might be duplicated by the commission of inquiry. "Master butchers insist that the establishment of a fixed wholesale price is the first essential, to which the addition of an adequate trading margin would result in a new retail price order,” said the federation. “Revision of the old order back to a basic wholesale value would result in establishing a theoretical purchase price at which supplies could not be obtained, as it would then be lower than the export schedule. “The federation has been informed by the tribunal that negotiations must be pursued on the basis of the present price order—that is the cost to the consumer It is clearly the responsioility of the Government to make supplies of meat available to the trade at prices which can be related equitably to the retail order. If the producer is to receive a price for his stock the consumer must pay the equivalent price or the Government must take some steps to bring the purchase value of meat back to a price which can be related to the rates at which the Government insists the meat shall be sold to the public.”