HOTTER PRICES ENQUIRY.

Hokitika Guardian, 17 September 1920, Page 3

HOTTER PRICES ENQUIRY.

[PER PRESS ABBOOIAVION. —COPYRIGHT.] /

WELLINGTON, Sept. 17. The first meeting of the Parliamentary Committee set up by the House to inquire into and report upon the present and future prices of butter in the Dominion especially with regard to the

probability of the present and probable surplus being purchased by the Imperial Government at considerable increase in

price, as compared with that of last season’s, was held this morning. Tlie Committee consists of Messrs Nash (Chairman), Atmore, J. R. Hamilton, Hawlcen, Hockley, Kellett, McCombs, McLeod, Poland, Powdrell and Massey. The Chairman suggested that the evidence of the various parties interested should be taken. Two from each section would be sufficient, and he thought it absolutely necessary there should be evidence from the point of view of labour, the witnesses to be selected by labour organisations themselves. The first witness called was A. R. Stone, accountant to the Agricultural Department who analysed 24 typical cases which had been supplied to the Department, which after allowing all expenses and charges should average loss of 2fd on production of a pound of butter fat, on the prices paid by the various factories they supplied. Wm Singleton, assistant director of the Dairy Division of the Agricultural Department, said last year New Zealand produced 28,000 tons of butter, of which 11,000 were consumed and 14,000 exported and 17,000 were now available for export. The grading of butter receded in the last four years, and the grading of cheese was going up. He suggested the British Government had not paid a price for butter on a parity with cheese, consequently there had been a disposition to produce cheese instead of butter. On the cost of production, he said the Commission which snt in Chicago in 1917, held that farmers were entitled, not only to interest on his Investment, but to ten per cent on all costs, as his share of the enterprise. In 1914-15 a farmer had to invest £9O per cow per acre. In 1919-20 he had to invest £l5O per cow. The principal items in file increased cost were land and labour. The reason so few farmers knew what it cost them to produce a pound of butter fat was that so few of them were accountants. He thought the herds of tlie Dominion were improving. He could not say whether it was more profitable to milk by machines, than by hand.

. David Haberfield, President of tlie Christchurch Grocers’ Association, detailed his s experieiice of the retail trade in connection wtli butter. Pre-war grocers bought butter at Is Id, and sold at Is 3d, which left a fair profit, but expenses bad so gone up that to-day double the profit would not give the same return. With butter at 2s fid wholesale, a fair profit be 4d per pound cash, and 5d booked and delivered. Butter was a seventh of a grocer’s turnover. He anticipated if the price reached the point talked of, that consumption would be considerably reduced.

Criticising the figures supplied to the Committee, Mr McCombs contended they were more or less valueless, quoting the case of one farmer who said he was losing £292 yearly on land valued at £ls per acre, yet fie said hia lend was worth £22 per acre. He thought the figures should lie investigated by an accountant.

The Committee proceeded to deliberate and subsequently adjourned tjll Tuesday.