PRICE OF BREAD

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 92, 15 October 1932, Page 12

PRICE OF BREAD

(To the Editor.) ■ T Sir—ln your issue of the jlOth inst. you publish an article under the abjove heading, and wliich was supplied hy the. Auckland Chamber of Commerce. May we be permitted to correct some misleading-state-ments appearing in the article? '■-'' ' -In the first place, our northern friends profess to be aggrieved because they say ,we made use of the price of bread 'in- Sydney, and. fey. that means: did not provide a fair comparison because the price of bread in Sydney is higher than in'any other State m Australia, as a result of the operation of the Flour Acquisition Act of New South Wales. .The inference is that we made tiee of only .tho Sydney price. i v V ll refer to the statement issued by the Wheat Board to membcra of Par"ament, you wilf see that the-.price in .Melbourne is set out in exactly the same way as Sydney. So much for that. ; _ Tho. next item that calls ior , comment is that tho Auckland Chamber of Commerce states that the Wheat Board quoted South Island prices at "which bread was selling for cash at cut-rate stores, where the price was made low. expressly for advertising purposes. .The inference is that tho Wheat Board did not quote the ordinary ■ Master Bakere' Association prices for bread, but simply gave the cutrate prices. Again, if you will refer to the Wheat Board's statement/ you will find that the Master Bakers' Association prices were quoted in all cases, arid where a cut-rate figure was given it was specially described as such.

Another grievance the Auckland Chamber of Commerce professes to have is that the Wheat Board compared prices of bread in Australian towns with prices in the main centres in the South Island. The inference here is that we left out the North Island comparison. Once more, if you will refer to the Wheat Board's statement, you will find that the prices were given.in the main South Island towns, together with the extra cost for transporting flour and converting into bread jii the North Island. ' .

In conclusion may we state that \ve always welcome fair criticism, but surely it is only .-right and proper that those making the criticism should set. down- the facts correctly.—We are, etc., ' i WHEAT MARKETING AGENCY CO., LTD, . Christeburch, 14th October. ■•:-.