ALLEGED PROFITEERING.

North Otago Times, Volume CVI, Issue 13975, 10 September 1917, Page 1

ALLEGED PROFITEERING.

BOARD OF TRADE REPORT. j WHAT PRIMARY PRODUCERS HAVE LOST. WELLINGTON/Scptember G. The question of "profiteering" is dealt with in a memorandum from the Board of T/ade read by the Prime Minister in the/House of Beprescntativoa to-night. The memorandum stated that "if 'profiteering' mcqns creating an artificial scarcity by holding up'-.sup-plies with the object of forcing up prices, then we can definitely say that 'profiteering' has not been practised to any extent in New Zealand. If, on the other hand, 'profiteering' means taking advantage of the market to make money without any illegitimate nmncenvring. then it is certain that many dealers have made money by sales of stock which were purchased cheaply and sold on n rising market, but which in many instances could not be replaced to sell at over tlio advanced selling prices obtained. 'Profiteering' has also been charged against our primary producers, but they have received • full market value for their products? The price nf butter on the London market has been determined-by the state of the world's supplies, and in consequence of the short supply up to Juno 30, 191G, the price was correspondingly high; but the local consumer during the first two years of (he war, by.tho voluntaiy action of the butter factories supplying the local trade, received his rJutter at hi to lgd per lb lower than the export equivalent of the London price. Thip represented a loss to those factories of approximately £115,000, and during the year that closed on August 31, 1017. under the scheme which the Government sanctioned last October, the local Consumer has received his supplies at a price representing a saving to him of approximately £200,000, In regard to wool, meat, and cheese, tho prices have in the main been determined renegotiations between the Imperial ami Dominion Governments, and in each case full market values have not been insisted upon by the New Zealand producers. In no case did the New Zealand producer of theso commodities receive as high a price as his foreign competitor, Not only has the producer in New Zealand not been guilty of taking advantage "of the slate of Ihe market'lo get Hie best price obtainable, but .hi' has been conlenl with a sum considerably less. The disadvantage the primary producers have sustained during the war period is represented by iho following figures: Butter, ;C3.1.1,01111 (local sales); cheese, £1,200,000 (export sales); meat, £(1,000,000 (export sales); wool, £1,400,000 (export sales); lolal, £,S,!ll;l,00il. The question remains as to whether Iho local consumer of our primary products should pay the high prices due to the insistent and growing demand in Britain for these commodities. If a lower than export value is determined upon for local consumption, some ■ interests must bear the disadvantage, and some scheme must be devised whereby such disadvantage would become a distributed charge on all exports. As this is a policy question for the Government to decide, the Board of Trade will, if requested by the Prime .Vaster, work out such a scheme in "all detail.'' / _