BUTCHERS’ CRITICISM

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 80, 26 June 1945, Page 5

BUTCHERS’ CRITICISM

RETAIL MEAT SUBSIDY REFERENCE BY MR NASH REASONS FOR DELAY IN PAYMENT Wellington, This Day. Criticism of the retail meat subsidy attributed to Dunedin master butchers, and factors responsible for the delays which had taken place in payment of the subsidy were referred to by the Acting Prime Minister, Mr Nash, last night. ‘•The export meat schedule was increased in November. 1944,” said Mr Nash. “In January, 1945. the Government. after hearing representations from the Master Butchers’ Association, decided to pay a subsidy at the rate of 1/3 per 20/- worth of meat coupons The subsidy was made retrospective t.o November, 1944. The Government also indicated to the butchers that in the event of this rate of subsidy not being regarded as adequate, a full investigation of butchers’ accounts would be made af‘er the subsidy had been operating for a reasonable time, and if any alteration was then found necessary in the subsidy, it would be mare introspective. “One of the difficulties in determining the rate of subsidy was to ascertain the proportions of the different classes of meat entering into local consumption Since the time when the original rate of subsidy was determined more precise information has become available on this point. This information was considered by the Government to warrant an increase of the subsidy rate to Is 7d, and this increase has accordingly been made. ‘lt should be understood,” said Mr Nash, “that this subsidy has no relation to cost increases which butchers may incur the result of other factors, such wage increases. Such general cost increases will be dealt with by the Price Tribunal in the ordinary way.” Referring to delays which have taken place in payment of the subsidy. Mr Nash said that the Master Butchers’ Association had at first decided to advise butchers not to fill in the subsidy authorities in the prescribed manner. It was not till the end of March that the association agreed to advise its members to accept payment of the existing rate of subsidy. this dela3' not occurred subsidy payments would probably have been made tnree months earlier than was actually the case. DUNEDIN FIRM FINED BUTCHERS CLOSE SHOPS TO ATTEND COURT Dunedin, June 25. A case of great importance to the butchery trade and of interest to the public in general was heard in the Magistrates' Court to-day before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., when the butchery firm of W. Duke and Sons Ltd. was charged with a breach of the Control of Prices Emergency Regulations. Defendants, who were represented by Mr J. S. Sinclair, pleaded not gu|ilty to a charge that on March 9 they offered for sale first grade prime rib rolled and boneless beef at 1/- per lb, the maximum price being 10id per lb. The presecution, which was brought on behalf of the Department of Industries and Commerce, was conducted by Mr F. 3. Adams. The gallery was packed with members of the butchery trade, whose ihops were closed for the day. The defendant company was fined £ls and costs £3 3s.

Mr Adams said the offence was regarded as serious. Three days after an inspector had detected the offence the company had written to the liaison officer dealing between the butchers and the Government stating that it was impossible to adhere to the price order, and strongly criticising the operation of the order. The prosecution had been brought in an atmosphere of intimidation, and he submitted that the letter referred to was written to dare the tribunal to prosecute. The event was being celebrated by a butchers’ holiday, and the trade was sacrificing public convenience.

For the defence, Mr Sinclair said Duke and Sons were the oldest established butchery firm in Dunedin, and in 57 years no conviction had been recorded against them. Counsel submitted that in the absence of a proper subsidy not only the defendants, but every butcher in the community, was compelled to charge in excess of the price fixed by the tribunal or go out of business. The price order did not give the butchers a fair price. They had been compelled to shoulder all overhead expenses, wages and ancillary charges, and v/ent now into this fight with the authorities boots and all.

Cross-examined by Mr Adams, William James Duke, managing director of the defendant firm, admitted that for the whole of the present year and for portion of last year he had not been keeping to the price order. He knew nothing about other butchers in the city.

Asked if he was prepared to swear that he was carrying on at a loss, witness said he was on the right side, but was not making a big profit. He said he was prepared to produce the company’s balance-sheet in order to convince the stabilisation committee that if they operated under the existing order shops would have no recourse but to shut down. “If we get a subsidy we will go right down to the pegged price and stay there.” witness affirmed. “Asked by the prosecution why the shops had closed that day. witness admitted it v/as to attend the proceedings. The magistrate said that in the eyes of the Court defendant had broken the law, and there was no option but to convict. It would be wrong to treat the matter as trivial, and a nominal penalty only was not sufficient. The price regulations were designed to protect the public from exploitation by traders, and were not meant to penalise honest traders. Defendant obviously had a grievance in that the difference between the buying and selling prices did not allow of a reasonable profit. It would anpear that an increased subsidy was indicated, but it would be presumptuous on the part of the Court, which was not a court of appeal, to tell the Government what to do. The butchers had a definite grievoance. but it was only his duty to interpret the law. STATEMENT ISSUED TO-DAY Dunedin, This Day. Butchers reopened to-day and issued a statement about retail price limits whose gist was that the stabilisation of retail prices is a stark impossibility unless overhead and wholesale prices are similarly stabilised.