Grocery Inquiry Housewives Object To Evidence Of President

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 29057, 20 November 1959, Page 17

Grocery Inquiry Housewives Object To Evidence Of President

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, November 19. Statements that the president of the New Zealand Housewives’ Federation (Mrs Pearl Baker) gave evidence to the Trade Practices and Prices Commission on Wednesday as an independent witness, and that her evidence was contrary to the federation’s policy were not correct, said Mrs Baker, giving evidence to the commission today. Recalled to the witness box, Mrs Baker said the evidence she gave was in keeping with the federation’s remits at the last conference. She entirely disagreed with the statements that she was speaking purely as an independent witness.

Objections to Mrs Baker’s evidence given on Wednesday were made in two telegrams read to the commission.

One telegram, signed “J. Kurney, secretary, Federation of New Zealand Housewives” read: “Mrs Pearl Baker not given authority to speak on behalf of the New Zealand housewives. Mr R. M. Barker informed of this. Mrs Baker merely independent witness, her evidence to commission contrary to federation conference decision. With view to lowering cost of living, 1959 conference remit to Government said ‘That we urge the Government to stabilise prices of essential goods and services, these to include groceries.” The other telegram was from Mrs May E. Furey, secretary of the Canterbury Housewives’ Association. It read: “Mrs Baker’s statement not in line with New Zealand Housewives’ Federation, policy. Cuts across telegram sent to Prime Minister from federation urging price control.” Mrs Baker told the commission today that she went to a housewives’ meeting and read the telegram she had received from the Master Grocers’ Federation in-

viting her to give evidence. The members sanctioned her coming. Why should they have done that if she were not to speak for them? She had particularly mentioned the housewives’ demand for stable prices for essential goods and had been quoted in the press as saying so.

It should be appreciated, Mrs Baker said, that she was a businesswoman, as well as a housewife. She wanted to be clear in her mind of the actual position before giving evidence, and had, therefore, made her own investigations.

If she had made the housewives angry she must apologise, but what she had done had been in line with her own conscience and with the remits of the Housewives' Federation.