PARLIAMENTARY BUTTER COMMITTEE.

Taihape Daily Times, Volume XII, Issue 3582, 18 September 1920, Page 4

PARLIAMENTARY BUTTER COMMITTEE.

The Parliamentary Committee recently set up to enquire into and report upon present and future prices of butter has commenced taking evidence. It is well-known that the British Government is offering a muck ■higher price than, is being paid by the (Consumer in New Zealand for it. and as few people will deny that '.he producer has a right to dispose of his butter, or of anything else in the market that will return him the best remuneration, another rather serious rise in the cost of living is threatening the already hard-pressed working community. To make matters worse a Mr David Haberfield., president of some Christchurch Association lias been hastened into giving evidence that it doe's not pay retailers to sell the butter at less (ban double the profit now allowed on it. He contends that a fair profit would be fourpence a pound for cash and flvepcnce if booked. Now, if there are any old colonists in the retail butter trade at the present time Mr Haberficld’s contention will ckuse some qualm of conscience, for they will remember when the farmer was receiving threepence and fourpence for his butter which j was retailed at fivepence and six- j pence. They will wonder whether I circumstances have really so changed 1 as to entitle the retailer to contend! that he cannot profltbaly sell butter I at less than it was retailed at a few . years ago. Whether there is justi- 1 fieation for Mr Haberfield’s contention

we are not prepared to say simply because wc have not gone into the subject critically . and he probably has. The interesting' feature lies in the fact that the profit wanted on butter now is equal to the whole cost of butter to ;he consumer some years back. Further, it is evident that dairy-farmers must very soon come into the bankruptcy court, if they do not get out of the business, for in 24 cases the Agricultural Departemnt analysed. after allowing the charges claimed by the farmers, they made an evident loss of 2|d on every pound of butter-far they supplied to the factories. Mr McCombs thought one farmer had made an error in calculation; lie pointed out that this farmer claimed to be losing £292 every year on land valued at £ls an acre and yet claimed that his land was worth £22 an acre. Under the circumstances Mr McCombs thought that the figures should be investigated by an accountant. A notable feature in Mr Haberfield’s evidence is that he anticipates that if butter rises to the price, talked of, the consumption will be considerably reduced. That evidence is important because Mr Haberfield is satisfied that the price’ of butter will put that necessary article of food beyond the power of wages, at present paid to workers to purchase. Any criticism we have to make will be withhold until the Parliamentary Committee reports, until then we shall confine ourselves to pure comment upon the evidence submitted.