PROFITEERING

Hokitika Guardian, 16 March 1920, Page 3

PROFITEERING

i - w— ■ ■ - DEPUTATION TO PREMIER. [PER PRESS ASSOCIATION. —COPYRIGHT.] WELLINGTON, March 15 Representatives of the retail clothing and drapery business had an interview ! with the Premier on Saturday morning jto place the various aspects of their business before him in view of the statements of alleged profiteering, and sought definite information re the working of the Board of Trade. Members of the deputation, who were representative of the Dominion, urged that in deciding whether the prices charged were reasonable regard be paid to all the circumstances of the case, including the initial cost, and current market prices. It was also suggested that the Board of Trade have associated with them representatives of the trades being investigated because the former are not to be expected to be experts in all trades. To trace profiteering, the goods should be followed right from the raw material to the retail shop. It was denied that there was profiteering in the retail drapery and large profits on some big firms due to increased turn over.

• The deputation said that in England j the net and not the gross profit was ' considered by the investigating commiti tee. Tile committee saw that during : the past two years flannelette, calicos, sheetings, etc., were sold in Wellington 1 at less than Manchester mill prices, j The deputation asked an announce- ! ment on the following: (a) The fairness ' of basing tbe selling prices upon the replacement values; (b) Tbe net profit on a return or sale to be taken as tbe basis when assessing reasonable profit. The Premier in reply said that as far as he could see there was no prospect of prices falling in another six months, but after that .he expected a decline. Me believed personally, that profiteering occupied a comparatively small place in the causes forcing up the prices. However, profiteering existed, and the purpose of the Act was to stop it. Unreasonable profits would *not be stood. Though there were no retailers on the tribunals, there were business men possessing the confidence of the people. If in the cases investigated the fair and. reasonable profits were exceeded it was for the Court to define “unreasonable.” He intended to circulate a synopsis of the Act in plain language for general information. It would have no terror for the honest trader. The Premier was interviewed by a deputation from tin? New Zealand Retail Association, and clothing trade represtntatives with a request that the cost of living tribunals, in considering fair profit be directed to take into account the cost of replacement.

Speakers contended that the trade bad saved the New Zealand consumer hundreds of thousands by early buying after the armistice, the result being that many lines were sold in New Zealand retail below the present English wholesale cost, Horrock’s calico, 1' inlnv’s sheeting, Tobraleo dress cotton goods, being quoted. Tbe last was stated to be selling at 3s per yard wholesale in England, the local prices, retail, being 2s 3c], The deputation urged that profiteering investigations be pursued to the source of manufacture. r Mr Massey promised to refer tbe points to tlie Board of Trade without undertaking to accept suggestions. He was prepared to admit in many lines that there had not been undue profits. Replying to a request that the tribunals should include men with a knowledge of tlie trade, the Premier said that they sat in private, and there would be opportunity for those interest ed in tbe trade to make their representations.