PRICE CONTROL

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20102, 23 November 1939, Page 2

PRICE CONTROL

AUSTRALIA’S PLAN

COMPARISON WITH N.Z.

DIFFERENCE IN METHODS

COMMENT BY MERCHANT

Comment on a previous statement on price fixing made by the Hon. D. G. Sullivan, was passed by an Auckland trader this week. Mr, Sullivan, he said, had gone to a great deal of trouble to make his statement on price fixation in New Zealand fit in with the requirements of the public interests, but in his mention of Professor Copland and the Australian procedure, he did not touch on the points in which die Australian traders had had thendifficulties met nearly two months ago, while Mr. Sullivan’s former promises of rectification had not yet percolated through the Price Tribunal.

The facts were that the regulations for price fixation in Australia at the outbreak, of war were similar to those introduced in New Zealand. In Australia, however, Professor Copland, who is the Price Fixing Commissioner, stated on October 4 that a new formula would be announced for large groups of commodities, and on October 7 the cost averaging system was devised to apply to more than half the essential articles of the Commonwealth. Items such as bread and other foodstuffs were not included.

Change of Procedure

Reports from Canberra had also spoken of the existence of widespread confusion, particularly in the grocery trade, regarding items upon which there had been wholesale increases. The change in procedure was designed to enable price increases to be made on the initiative of' the trader by adding ordinary profit to higher wholesale rates without reference to the commisioner, the increases being subject to challenge by the commissioner.

“Compare this with the dilatory and ineffective methods operating in New Zealand, and it will be found that price control in New Zealand is not 5 per cent effective,” said the business man. Merchants were now receiving permission to sell foodstuffs that were consumed a month ago, while factories were using supplies at prices which they had not received permission to pay. The replacement cost, on which the Minister had dwelled, was not troubling traders as much as the fact that it was only by breaking the price fixation laws that the community was receiving its supplies of most of the purchasable merchandise. The prices charged were made by the trades and were reasonable and just, all apart from Government control.