RIGHT TO CONTROL TRADE

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 90, 13 October 1932, Page 12

RIGHT TO CONTROL TRADE

REPEAL OF LEGISLATION SOUGHT

GOVERNMENT'S DEFINITE REFUSAL

Mr. Stronach Paterson said that repeated requests had been made for the repeal of the Acts, and it was to be hoped that this would be the last deputation to approach the Government. The deputation, was more representative than, the others and had the full authority of the commercial, manufacturing, and trade organisations of the Dominion. The Acts had their origin in socialistic ideas which had begun to make themselves evident in pre-war days, and which, possibility had .received an unavoidable impetus during the war. Their worthlessness was now being exposed by times of stress and depression. The 'ideas behind the Acts were that if the making of any profit was not a crime, it was at least a doubtful or unsocial act, but no greater service to the community could be performed by any individual than the building up of a sound ■business, earning steady and regular profits. - CHARTER OF PRICE-CUTTER. The Commercial Trusts Act and what was ■ left of the Cost of Living Act were the charter of the. price-cutter, and were directly" aimed at the building' of sound and profitable business. They were the ,wrecker of sound . business, and until recently had been - made the basis of what was nothing ■ more than blackmail. Price-cutters, had gone to distributors or manufacturers, and had stated that, unless they were given concessions or privileges, they would deliberately cut the price of the manufacturer's or merchant's goods, knowing full well that because of these Acts the . merchant or manufacturer could not retaliate. One would find a very definite relationship between the failure to make'profits because of these Acts, and to-day's huge unemployment problem. Prosperous traders of a few years ago were how among the ranks of the unemployed, and no small portion of the blame could be attributed to these Acts. . The Board of Trade Act followed the- principle of the Commercial Tmsts Act and was a constant menace to trade and industry. It would almost seem that it was deliberately designed to discourage the launching of new enterprise and the investment of new capital in industry. ■ : "The fact that under this Act, the Government has power (even if hitherto it has not exercised the power) to control in any way the Minister of Industries and Commerce deems necessary, any trade, business, or profession, or undertaking whatsoever carried on for profit^—and to establish in any trade, business, etc., maximum or mini- • mum prices, or rates, for any classes of ■goods, or. services, except wages or remuneration for employees, is an obvious and outstanding threat to any enterprising person, or body of persons, whether citizens of this country, or of other countries, to start within .this Dominion a new industry, or a new ■business," said Mr. Paterson. POWERS TO BE RETAINED. "In asking for the total repeal of these four Acts, the deputation does not suggest that the Government should relinquish all powers of investigation, and of supervision, of industry and commerce. If these Acts are repealed, the commercial interests will raise no objection to—indeed, will welcome—the substitution of a short, clear, and straight-forward Act of Parliament giving power to the Minister of Industries and Commerce to make a reasonable investigation and inquiry into the conduct of any business, for the purpose of ascertaining, and reporting to the Government whether or not any such business is being conducted in a manner, prejudicial to the public interest." Mr. Paterson said that previous. deputations had received 'sympathetic hearings from.' past governments and full consideration of the representations had been promised. In June last year the Prime Minister had informed them that "certain proposals were then under consideration by the Government, and a decision^ in regard to t!ese would be made .at an early date." IHirther letters on.the subject to the Prime Min-ister-I—the1 —the last of which Vras written on the 3rd September, 1931—had failed to provoke.any dearer or more satisfactory answer from the Prime Minister. Since then, other deputations had - Waited on the Government without getting any" clearer statement of the Government policy. CLEAR ANSWER DESIRED. "Now, we submit that we are entitled to a clear and decisive answer to the representations made to you to-day, said Mr. Paterson. Such'clear answer could take one of three forms:— - (1) It could grant our plea and promise ns in the present session of Parliament the remedy we seek. : - (2) It could tell us that the Gov- ! : eminent was not convinced by our '•. representations, and did not intend '^to give effect to them. : *■ (3) It could toll us that our representations would have the careful consideration of the Government, and ' that we would be definitely advised ' within a reasonable time—say, a fortnight—whether the Government • could accede to our request, or not. ■ "We respectfully submit that we are entitled to a definite decision on the matter either now or within a reasonable time as soon as the Government has had opportunity of further considering our representations. Wo do fieel that we are entitled to know exactly where ire stand, and what the Government's intentions are in the matter. , "I said earlier that I hopetl this ■would be the last deputation to the Government on this subject. It can only be the last deputation if our Very reasonable requests are acceded to. .The position is far too serious for the commercial community to let up; the opposition to these Acts is growing stronger year by year, and month by month, and it will go on grow- • Ing stronger until it achieves its objects." GROCERS' COMPLAINT. Mr. J. H. Barker, representing the New Zealand Master Grocers' Association, and retailers generally, said that selling goods at cost and) below cost was an unfair practice and one of the greatest evils of to-day. Price-cutting had the effect of increasing unemployment. The deputation asked the Government to remove the interference wiih legitimate trading. "What we want to prevent," he said, "is the re-

. A definite statement that the Government would not repeal the Commercial Trusts Act, 1910, the Cost of Living Act, 1915, the Board of Trade Act, 1915, and the Board of Trade Amendment Act, 1925, was made by the Prime Minister (the. Right Hon. G. W. Forbes) to-day in reply to a deputation representing the commercial and manufacturing organisations. The deputation contended that 'the Acts were detrimental to the building up of sound business arid that they, should be replaced by a simple Act giving the Government power to investigate and exercise reasonable control over business activities. '.

tailer selling an article which costs one shilling at the same price or below it. And that is what is happening today." There was no body of traders so hard Kit to-day as the tobacconists. RIGHTS OF CONSUMERS. The Minister of Industries and Commerce (the Hon. E. Masters) said he could not but be impressed with the representations made, but consideration had also to be given to the purchasing people. The Commercial Trusts Act had been, passed to suppress monopolies in. trade and commerce, and although it might be thought that there was no need for it, it might surprise Mr. Paterson to know that at the present moment there was a case before the Court. In some cases, the Commercial Trusts Act was really a sheet-anchor for traders who had no desire to become connectod with any trust or combine, and it was also a sheet-anchor to those who needed protection from any combine that might abuse its position. It was not illegal to form a combine, and iii some cases a combine worked for the benefit of the public in they way of reducing distribution and overhead charges.. . : But it was the abuse of the position that caused the necessity for the legislation, and as long as there was no abuse, the legislation could not do any harm. With the exception of the present case, there had been only one case taken under the Act since 1924, that being the flourmilling case. Mr. Masters said he had no sympathy whatever for any trader who did not trade for profit; he was a menace to the trading community, wholesalers, and the Minister of Finance, because he deprived the Minister of revenue which should be obtained as the result of successful trading. Mr. Masters also said that he did not believe in the indiscriminate cutting of prices, a tremendous amount of which was going on in New Zealand to-day.. The Minister said it was possible to make satisfactory arrangementsl, as the result of private negotiations with traders, for the protection of the. public in the matter of overcharging, particularly the overcharging of foodstuffs. Since he had been Minister of Industries and Commerce he had had under review quite a large number of cases all over New Zealand dealing with complaints in respect of excessive charges for foodstuffs, particularly bread, and although the latter line had been subject to cutting, his Department had- been instrumental in bringing the price down. He emphasised that that result had been achieved by negotiation and not by force. If the Commercial Trusts Act and the Board of Trade Act were not on the Statute Book, the job of making reductions would be hopeless. Beference had been made to,issuing regulations. It was extraordinary that, although the Acts had been on the Statute Book so long, there were really only four regulations operative to-day. He claimed that there had been no abuse in regard to the issue of regulations. When , Orders-in-Council were issued they we're laid on the table of the House, and every member had the right to discuss them and move any motion concerning them. ABOUT THEATRES. Dealing with an 'Order-in-Couneil issued in respect of theatres, the .Minister said that not one business man present would stand for such interference from, any trust as had been attempted. If they had had the same pistol placed at their heads by a combination telling ttiem. that unless they were prepared, to hand over 50 per cent, of their profits without the organisation putting in one. penny, a business would be put up against them, they would not have stood for such interference. That was the Teason. for the Order-in-Couneil. Only this morning the Minister said he had received official information that the deputation did not represent the views of the picture theatre proprietors of New Zealand. Ninety per cent, of the theatre proprietors' stood by the Order-in-Coun-eil, which they did not want lifted. TRANSPORT QUESTION. -- In dealing with transport, Mr. Masters pointed out that no objection had been, taken to the question, of licensing, though businesses had been put out of action as a Tesult of the Transport Board legislation. He mentioned this because it did seem as though there,was a certain amount of inconsistency.' ■Regarding the Board of Trade Act, he asked if any Minister had abused his position in making public information he had received as a result of inquiries. He could sympathise with the business people, but at the same time there was the protection of the public to be considered, and the public were not represented at the deputation. He pointed out that the conduct of businesses -was changing, which affected costs of distribution. Wisely administered, the Commercial Trusts Act and the Board of Trade Act were doing, and could do, a great service to tho/pcople. The very fact of having the legislation was helpful. AMENDMENT, NOT REPEAL. The Prime Minister said the deputation was entitled to an answer. Naturally in a matter of that nature Cabinet would have to consider every aspect before a definito reply was given. The tendency to-day in business was toward combination, and the Government had to be in a position to protect the general public from x the operations of trusts or combines. (Hear, hear.) On one occasion he had negotiated with a firm in connection with the price it was charging for a line of foodstuffs, and had been told that no reduction in the price would be made. To-day that firm was suffering from price-cutting, and was asking for a repeal of the Act in order to deal with the situation which it itself had created. In regard to foodstuffs, Be did not think the public would agree to any action being taken which would prevent businesses selling foodstuffs at the lowest possible price—even cost price. He remembered when the cut-rate grocers had commenced operations. They had been told then that the trade would be ruined, but no such result had eventuated. There was a difficulty in connection with proprietary articles; in some cases there had been unjustifiable price-cutting, and the Government realised that a man who j

had invented or discovered a new article was entitled to reasonable treatment on the market. He could not say, however, what coald be done in that respect without ctaii-eful consideration. There was no flldubt that the Acts might be overhau&od, but the question of repeal was a titttilly different matter. ,It was essential that the Government should retail certain powers to deal with combo; nes. No doubt there wore cases of! hardship, but it was the duty of t'ke Government to consider all sectiiM is of the community. They had asked for a regical of the Acts, and he could say definitely that they would riot be repeal < id. The question of amendment woi | Id be considered, and the representations would be given due weight;. Mr. Paterson. said the deputation did iiot wish that the Govcrnmeai t should give up the power to investigate and control industry, but desired tbe repeal of the objectionable legislation, which he described as a blunderbus?U