PRODUCERS PROFITS

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 8, Issue 20, 31 October 1944, Page 6

PRODUCERS PROFITS

MARGIN INSUFFICIENT

INDUSTRY SUFFERS AS RESULT

The contention that the report of the Internal Marketing Division showed conclusively that producers were not obtaining a sufficient reward for flicir work, and naturally they ceased to produce, was-"put forward by Mr W. Sullivan (National, Baj r of Plenty) when the Estimates were being discussed in the House of Representatives. Mr Sullivan said that the report which related to 1043, showed that there was a decline in practically every lints, handled by the Division. There was a reason for that decline and it seemed to lie illustrated in the explanation for the drop in the maize production. The maize growers were informed by the Government, only about three -weeks ago that their price Avas to be subsidised by (3d a bushel. The announcement Avas so late that the coming season's yield Avas adversely affected. That was j one of the reasons for the. inadc-! quatc crop. Similar conditions prevailed in connection Avith hop production, the decrease in 1013, compared Avitli 1042 being 750 bales. In the case of apples, the. number of acres planted in 1042 Avas 5500 less than in the year 103 G. The departmental report showed that over a lew years the department had made a profit of £110,000. It Avas perfectly obvious that such a profit could be obtained only by charging the consumers much more than the products cost the department. There Avas also the significant fact that on an investment of £135 in the [inn of Combined Distributors, the department made a very substantial profit.

Dealing with the Valuation Department, Mr Sullivan said he was wondering when the department could undertake the valuation of boroughs which had not been valued for many years-. He had in mind one borough where the last valuation was made in 1931). At that Lime, properties were sold at almost give-away prices—£s lo £10 for quarter acre sections. If one wished to buy one of those sections today one had to pay £70 £80 or £100. Those property owners were receiving all the amenities but contributing little towards local body taxation. A revaluation would distribute the load more equitably. The borough in particular had ap-i piled on morc than oru -. occasion for a revaluation I)ut the answer had always been ' that there was a .shortage of stall'. He realised that that was true, to some extent. A good deal of the time of the valuers was taken up with work under the new Land Sales but the boroughs should be given consideration.