INDUSTRY OPPOSED

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20629, 3 December 1941, Page 4

INDUSTRY OPPOSED

FISH SALES ON WHARF ALL SECTIONS CONFER REPLY TO COUNCIL All sections of the industry are opposed to the proposal to sell fish on the wharves in Gisborne, according to a letter read at last night’s meeting of the Gisborne Borough Council from the Gisborne Fisheries, Limited. The letter was in reply to a request made by the council recently, and was signed, in addition to the representatives of Gisborne Fisheries, Limited, by five retailers and four fishermen with five boats. In order to obtain the opinion of every section of the industry, the letter stated, a meeting was held of wholesalers, retailers and fishing boat owners, and a comprehensive view was given of each section of the industry.

The duty of the wholesalers was to arrange an equitable distribution of available fish among the retailers, ensuring to each retailer fish to his total requirements when fish was plentiful and a proportion, according to his requirements, when fish was scarce. Thus, no retailer had a monopoly of fish at any time. The retailer need not carry large stocks in reserve, as he was certain to se : cure a proportion of any fish as it became available. This, too, ensured that tlxe public received fresh fish.

It was also the duty of the wholesaler to ensure the fishermen a steady market for their catches, and without the aid of the wholesalers the fishermen would have to arrange the disposal of their own fish, with resulting chaos and a disruption of the steady flow of the supply to the public. The wholesalers also undertook to dispose of any local surplus to outside centres and to hold supplies against bad weather.

“No Monopoly”

The wholesaler had no monopoly of fish, as he was obliged to supply every licensed trader in accordance with his requirements. Wholesalers felt it would be an intrusion into the markets of their customers (the retailers) to enter the retail market and sell on the wharf. Such sales were outside their province and were outside their normal functioning as wholesalers.

The retailers had invested large sums of money in equipping shops and restaurants to serve the public in the best possible way, so that the public could buy fish in any way and in any form the public desired. The selling of fish on the wharves would cut into this business. In reply to a suggestion that fish offered in the shops was not fresh, the letter stated that the fish was gutted directly it was caught and was fn the shops the same day. There was not another town in the Dominion where fish was available as fresh as in Gisborne, and prices were life cheapest in New Zealand. Cost of fish gutted only was from 3d to 5d per 111, according to kind. Cleaning, scaling and filleting entailed a loss of 50 per cent, in weight, and with labour and rental costs added, together with losses for unsold fish, the price to the public from 6d per lb. for whole fish cleaned and scaled up to Is per lb for fillets, was by no means exorbitant. Retail prices were less to-day than in 1928, when whole fish was at 8d per lb and Is for cutlets, against lOd to-day. Soles were Is 3d and flounders Is 6d per lb, against Is to-day. Fishermen’s Viewpoint Selling of fish on the wharves was not remunerative to the fishermen, entailing longer hours and shorter stays on the fishing grounds, resulting in much smaller catches. It was found in the past that when selling on the wharves the catches were only half what they are now under the present longer hours of fishing when the boats do not have to return until 4 or 5 p.m. With wharf sales the price the fish was sold at was below the wholesale price. Often, when the public was not present on the wharf in the usual numbers, much of the fish had to be dumped The present system assured a steady market and regular payment. Orderly marketing was essential to avoid chaotic conditions, and it was difficult for those in the fish industry to understand why it was singled out for attention from those other industries catering for table requirements. The public was amply protected by the Price Tribunal, which was fully alive to economic and orderly marketing, and it was asking the industry to sacrifice itself for the benefit of a small section of the public. Signatories to the letter were: Wholesaler, Gisborne Fisheries, Limited, per Mr. Theo. Nicholas; retailers, Messrs. William Brown, W. Cameron, J. Hiller, S. Barnao, and' the Gisborne Fisheries, Ltd.; fishing boat owners, F. G. Kerr (Ellas), P. A. Munro (Phyllis), S. Zame (Iranui and Taupo), and L. D. Higham (Amai).