ALLEGED "PROFITEERING."

Otago Witness, Issue 3313, 12 September 1917, Page 20

ALLEGED "PROFITEERING."

BOARD OF TRADE REPORT. (From Ouh Own Correspondent.) WELLINGTON, September 6. The question of "profiteering" is dealt with in a memorandum from the Board of Trade read by the Prime Minister in the House of Representatives to-night. The memorandum stated that "if ' profiteering* means creating an artificial scarcity by holding up supplies with the object of forcing up prices, then wo 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 manoeuvring, then it is certain that many dealers have made money by sales of stock which were purchased cheaply and sold on a rising market, but which in many instances could not be replaced to sell at over the advanced selling prices obtained. ' Profiteering ' has also been charged against our primary producers, but have they received full market value for their products? The price of butter on the London market has been determined by the state of the world's supplies, and m consequence of the short supply up to June 30, 1916, the price was correspondingly high; but the local consumer during the first two years of the wa*y by the voluntary action of the butter factories supplying the local trade, received his butter at id to lfd per lb lower than the export equivalent of the London price. This represented a loss to those factories of approximately £115,000, and during the year that closed on August 31, 1917, 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, the prices have in the main been determined by negotiations between the Imperial and 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 these 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 state of the market to get the best price obtainable, but he has been content with a sum considerably less. The disadvantage the primary producers have sustained during the war period is represented by the following figures:—Butte.- £315,000 (local sales); cheese, £1,200,000 (oyport sales); meat. £6,000,000 'export sales); wool, £1.400,000 (export sales);— total, £8.915,000. The question remains as to whether the 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 faith" Government to decide, the Board of Trade will, if requested by the Prime Minister, work out such a scheme in full detail.