FURNITURE PRICES

Evening Post, Volume CXXXVIII, Issue 134, 4 December 1944, Page 4

FURNITURE PRICES

CORRESPONDENTS' VIEWS

(To the Editor.) JHx ri ~ThB m! mbers of the furniture SntL arf + Pf rt"rbed by the unwar-If-i vttack? bein 2 made and out of Parliament by public men and Parliamentarians in connection with the sale of furniture. There may be cases of exploitation and unscrupulous practice in the trade, in common with SYrnS bran + eh °f industry, but why the furniture trade should be singled out t«r«! pecial * con4 en?nation is repugnant to the vast majority of manufacturers and -traders who are generally upright m^mKllollo^? 16- One Government member cited a case where a shopkeeper had supposedly sold a kitchen suite at three times its real value If tins charge is correct, surely the Price Tribunal could take appropriate action. The furniture trade generally would welcome the prevention of such practices There is also, a suggestion that the Government should establishfurniture factories in order that returned men may obtain furniture at cheaper prices. How would this work out in practice? Has the semi-Govern-ment monopoly in the erection of houses resulted in cheaper homes for returned men? We know that building costs are practically'double what they were ten years ago. Has not the control of fruit also doubled in price and in many cases trebled it? There is too much loose talk about furniture prices In my wholesale business, and I am a returned soldier of the last war, prices have advanced 50 per cent, (apart from sales tax) during the past five years, and this increase has been due to the ever increasing cost of materials, timber, higher wages, paid holidays, heavier overhead, and the tremendous amount of extra work entailed by officialdom and Government restrictions. If the Government is itself sincere in its desire to help ex-servicemen to obtain cheaper furniture, why not cut out the 20 per cent, sales tax where servicemen are concerned. This would be much more preferable to erecting expensive, uneconomic furniture factories which would undoubtedly have to be subsidised by the taxpayer. In spite of many difficulties, the furniture trade has been able to cope with, the great demand for furniture in the various camps at home and in the Pacific during the past five years and can be relied upon to supply all the requirements of returned men in the future.—l am, etc., ' FURNITURE MANUFACTURER. Sir, —We have read a lot in the Press recently regarding the problem, of reasonably-priced furniture for our returned servicemen. When the war started, and the country was in urgent need of the most intricate precision instruments, munitions, and other war weapons, motor works and other peacetime industries with a big proportion of unskilled labour, turned out these articles in hundreds of thousands. Why not use the same organising ability to assist these returned men to furnish their homes'at a reasonable cost? These men deserve something better than a | standardised type of furniture, and State-controlled factories should be started in all the big towns and cities, where all types of modern furniture and furnishings could be manufactured, i Returned soldier labour should be used where possible.—l am, etc., 7/110.

Sir,—There has been quite a lot of criticism about the price of furniture. Not being in the trade, those who criticise know nothing about it. Furniture is, I will admit, a high price today, and so are. all. other things, house building in particular, and the Government is to blame. Take the cost of materials, plus 20 per cent, sales tax, high wages, and most employers paying well above award rates, and now the fortnight's annual holiday pay on top of all that. How do Ministers expect cheap furniture? A retailer has his staff, rent, and holidays to pay for, and he must get a fair profit, the same as any other retailer in any other line. Under State control, furniture would cost more, unless, of course, it is subsidised, and that comes from taxation, so what is the difference? —I am, etc., IN THE TRADE. Sir, —As vice-president of the Furniture Group of the New. Zealand Retailers' Federation and as one who saw overseas service in the last war, I was extremely disappointed to hear the remarks by Mr. Coleman, M.P. for Gisborne, to the effect that soldiers were being exploited by the furniture trade. My opinion, as an active member of the federation, is such that I feel the industry should be congratulated for its co-operation in keeping down prices, rather than be publicly condemned by those who do not make themselves familiar with the true position. It is known' that State houses were some years ago promised for the price of approximately £600. It is I well known, too, that the same design' today, and indeed an inferior quality house, costs over double the amount. But Mr. Coleman did not condemn the Government or the Price Tribunal for permitting this extraordinary increase. He knows that essential foodstuffs handled by the Internal Marketing Department show a huge increase in price. Unless there is a reasonable explanation, isn't this exploitation of the soldiers? Isn't it exploitation of the public, who also have some right to protection? But I am concerned with the furniture trade, in which there are many members who are returned servicemen. Other servicemen will be absorbed in the trade when they return. The federation, too, is concerned over unfair dealing, and, meanwhile, surely the alleged case to which Mr. Coleman referred in the House is a proper one for the Price Tribunal to, inquire into. He knows that trade unions have exerted pressure on other occasions, and it should not be difficult for prompt action to be taken. Indeed, if he would supply me with the facts of the case, I would undertake to persuade the federation to do-something. Mr. Coleman should know what he obviously does not know now, that effective action by the Price Tribunal

has reduced margins of profit very considerably in comparison with prewar margins. Many furniture businesses view the prospects with deep concern, having regard to the drop in sales over the last two years owing to shortage of stocks, particularly due to war work, partly due to wartime restrictions, and partly import restrictions. Lower margins of profit and decreasing turnover do not create optimism. Mr. Coleman should know, too. that the trade accepted restrictions with respect to manufacture'of certain goods, while it agreed to make, especially for soldiers, furniture which would be built to a high standard and which met with the approval of the Standards Institute, the Rehabilitation Department, and the Price Tribunal. Indeed, the trade voluntarily accepted a lower margin of profit on soldiers' standardised furniture, a margin which many feel is unreasonably low,

In view of these facts, with which Government members are apparently not familiar, it is sheer humbug to talk of the trade exploiting soldiers. Mr. Coleman is not the only one who has the interests of servicemen at heart, and I feel that no member should make political capital out of rehabilitation by shedding crocodile tears. We look to our public representatives to speak only when they have a true knowledge of the facts, and we also look forward to their showing a spirit of co-operation, by which alone the problem of rehabiiltation can be solved.—l am, ; etc.,