AUCTIONEERS’ PROTEST

Evening Star, Issue 20132, 23 March 1929, Page 7

AUCTIONEERS’ PROTEST

HEW SYSTEM OF DOING BUSINESS DEPUTATION TO HARBOUR BOARD With the object of making a united protest against the Harbour Board’s decision to give the whole of its auctioneering business to one firm, a large deputation comprising members of the Heal Estate Institute waited on the board last night. Mr J. B. Waters and Mr P. W. Stabb were the speakers. Mr Waters stated that the deputation wished to put before the board its views regarding the auctioneering of Harbour Board lenses. The previous arrangement had been that the auction sales should be distributed by rota among tlio various auctioneers doing business in Dunedin. However, recently the board had made a change. The Real Estate Institute had iorty members, comprising all real estate agents, but only nine held property sales by auction, so that the arrangements of the board really only affected them Outside their ranks ho thought that only one firm was not a member. Formerly they had done business by rota, taking their chance whether the sales were small or large. Ho was sorry the board bad altered that system, especially as it had not seen fit to favour the institute with a consultation in the matter. The members of the institute had,had no chance of knowing that any change was contemplated, or of making any other arrangements with the board than the existing one. All they wanted was an arrangement by which they would all be treated alike. They were quite willing to believe that the board bad made the new arraugments without giving the matter due thought, and it was considered that it was not yet too late to make an equitable adjustment. Mr Stabb said the deputation felt that it had a distinct grievance from the point of view of the institute, which wanted to put forward the position from its side. He thought that economy should go with equity. The institute felt that the board could not possibly have given the question the consideration which it deserved, otherwise it would not have arrived at the decision it did. The present system bad proved quite equitable. There was uo outstanding' qualification required as far as the selling of leases was concerned, and be thought that all tiie auctioneers associated with the institute were capable of carrying out the work. The question of charges must have been the major influence with the board. The deputation did not think that the board had been quite fair to the other auctioneers in nob giving them an opportunity of saying whether they would bo prepared to do business on the same terms as the firm to which the business had been given. The members of the institute felt that they should have been consulted before the board adopted the course upon which it had decided. He would like to know the basis tor the statement that it would be in the interests of the hoard to conduct all business through one firm. The speaker admitted that the legal work and valuing work of the hoard should not be subject to a sysof rota, but lie contended that the position in regard to auctioneering was quite different.

Tt was admitted that the commissions in connection with the sale of Harbour Board leases were somewhat different from those charged to an ordinary individual, and it was fair that the hoard should Ret a concession. Mr Stahh said that the hoard had fixed the rate of commission, and the firms were notified that their charges were to be 5 per cent. The institute had not been consulted as 1.0 the rate of commission. Some people suggested that the institute was a ring, but it was neither a ring nor a combine. The members were nut to protect their own interests, but it was out to protect the Harbour Board and the public as well. The institute would permit of elasticity so far as charges were concerned. Its ebarges were framed for the general trading community, and if the hoard wished to change the rate the institute would have to accept it. The institute was out to be equitable, and it desired the board to be equitable. If the rate of commission was regarded as too high, the institute would suggest a charge of 5 per cent on the first £IOO and 2-J per cent, on the balance. 11 the board thought that too high, the institute was still out to meet it. The institute felt that it was justified in putting ibo position before the board and asking for consideration. The firm which bad offered to do the board’s business was outside the institute, and it bad made the stipulation that it should get the whole of the business. IF the board felt that a commission of 2.V per cent, was a maximum amount the institute would be prepared to meet it, but he would suggest that the board should accept the terms suggested, which, wore those of the City Corporation.

Mr J. Loudon asked if_ the institute was prepared to do business for the board on a commission of 2,| per cent., Mr Stabb answered that their institute was out to meet the board, and if the board felt that the maximum commission should he 2-j per cent, he believed it would lie accepted. However. lie could not commit the institute tor he believed that 5 per cent, on the first £IOO, and ,2t per cent, on the balance, was a fair thing. “ Don’t think for a moment that the board thought any of you were not capable of doing the job,” said Mr H. H. Moller, the chairman. “ I should like to explain that the board did not set the commission at 5 per cent. In 1923 it was decided to give all the auctioneers a share qf the business. The first man charged 5 per cent., and this was paid. The rate has been continued ever since. Even when the matter was first put before the hoard nothing was said about commission.”

Continuing, Mr Mollcr said Hint previous to the motion being carried in 1923, the commission had always been 2} per cent. There were other, things underlying the whole question. The deputation had admitted that as tar as the Harbour Board leases were concerned there was nothing lurther for them to do except put. them up. It was a matter of finance, and in order to protect its interests the board had to look at it from that point of view. In conclusion, the chairman stated that he was quite sure the board wonjd give the deputation a fair hearing. Nothing could be done at that meeting, but it might he put before the board at the next meeting. He thanked the .deputation for the clear way in which it had stated its case. After the deputation had retired, Mr London gave the following of motion: “That the system of dividing the auctioneering business of the board between the various selling firms be adhered to, and that the motion giving the business to Messrs Park, Reynolds, be rescinded on the understanding that the maximum commission be 2£ per cent.”