THE FISH MARKET BOYCOTT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23542, 4 July 1938, Page 7

THE FISH MARKET BOYCOTT

TO THE EDITOR

Sir.—ln the statement presented to you by the president cl the Port Chalmers Fishermen’s Society he endeavours to excuse his society for boycotting the Dunedin fish market without notice by putting the blame on the auctioneering firms in Dunedin. I have yet to learn that any intelligent merchant would notify his customers that he was having a dispute with his suppliers. It would have been quite in order for the secretary of the Fishermen’s Society to inform us that, in the event of their demand not being acceded to. no fish would be sent to Dunedin, but that all fish would be sent to the National Mortgage Company at Port Chalmers and that the Dunedin fishmongers could obtain supplies from that source.

From his own statement, we gather that the Fishermen’s Society notified the Dunedin wholesalers on June 17 that commission would have to be reduced. A reply was received dated June 21 refusing to reduce the commission. The secretary of the Fishermen’s Society attends daily at the sales in Dunedin, and on June 24 he attended the sale as usual, yet no notice was given that there was any dispute or that, if supplies were withdrawn irom the Dunedin market, arrangements had been made for supplies to be obtained from any other source.

On Wednesday. June 29 (not Mon day) I received a letter from the National Mortgage Company stating its willingness to supply retailers with fish, but by that .time the local trade knew of the position. In view, of these facts 1 think you will agree that the retail fish trade and the consuming public have been unfairly dealt with by the Fishermen's Society, and that improper tactics were adopted. The Fishermen’s Society claims that it has fallen into line with the recommendations of the Sea Fisheries Commission to abolish the sale of fish by auction in Dunedin True, but the commission also recommended the appointment of marketing committees representative of all sections of the industry, including the retail section. The Fishermen’s Society at Port Chalmers has ignored the retail trade and has persistently refused to collaborate with the retailers.

During the past 25 years there has been only one meeting of fishermen and fishmongers. This meeting was arranged by the late Mr G. M Thomson to discuss the restriction of supplies, and to ask for more elasticity in the rules by which the Fishermen’s Society controlled the supply to the Dunedin market, but the result was nil. Mr A. Campbell, M.P for Chalmers, also endeavoured to arrange a meeting between the two bodies, but was unable to do so. I think, therefore, it is abundantly clear that the Port Chalmers Fishermen’s Society has not fallen into line with the recommendations of the Sea Fisheries Commission in that it has not consulted any other section of the industry con cerning the control of internal marketing, Instead of this it has handed ovei the control of its supplies to a large and wealthy firm of exporters. Will this firm publish the prices paid to fishermen and the prices charged to fishmongers in order that the public may judge for itself whether the dispute was a matter of 10 per cent commission or an endeavour to capture the sole control of this important industry? I venture to say that the difference between the prices paid and the prices charged will be considerable more than 10 per cent. It matters little to the fishmonger who handles the fish for the fishermen, provided it is handled efficiently, and I contend that drawing supplies from a depot in Port Chalmers does not make for efficiency. Under the sys-

tem prevailing in Otago for the past 40 years, the fisherman guts his own fish and packs it in cases provided by the wholesaler. It is lifted into the railway truck and railed direct to Dunedin at a nominal cost per case and shunted to the Dunedin fish market, which, incidentally, is not in the railway goods yard, but is at the foot of Frederick street, on the Anzac highway. It is then taken from the truck and sold to the fishmonger in lots to suit individual requirements, thus reaching the consumer the day after it is caught. Each fishmonger knows who caught the fish, and thus has a very good idea as to the quality of the fish he is buying. Under the system proposed, of having the main distributing centre at Port Chalmers, the fish is taken from the boats, carted into store, repacked, and the fishmonger can travel to Port Chalmers or ring up his orders and take what is sent to him, or go without. It is obvious that if the fish he receives does not suit him and he returns it he must close his shop until satisfactory supplies are received. The system of a main distributing centre at Dunedin means less handling and much speedier supply from the boat to the consumer, whilst the system adopted by the fishermen through the agency of the National Mortgage Company means more handling, higher railage and cartage expenses, and more delay between the boat and the consumer.

For the past two years the fishermen have received a guaranteed minimum price for their fish from the auctioneers and their secretary has been present at all sales to protect the interests of their society.

If we are to have monopolistic control, let the Government exercise that control through the agencies that have controlled efficiently the distribution of this important article of diet for the past 40 years This would mean that any profits derived from such control would be returned to the people to whom it rightly belongs the consuming public.—l am. etc.. Thos. D. Clarkson. St. Kilda. July 3.