Deputation to Premier.

Hokitika Guardian, 10 August 1920, Page 4

Deputation to Premier.

BOARD OF TRADE ACT.

L ee.lt PRESS ASSOCIATION. —COPYRIGHT.J WELLINGTON, August 9. A Dominion Deputation of wholesale and retail, traders waited upon the Prime Minister and Minister of Industries and Commerce this afternoon, to request an amendment to the Board of Trade Act Mr Wyles said that as the Act stood ft not only prevented the carrying on of trade according to long- established usages and customs, hut cast a suspicion on the traders. Section 32 of the Board of Trade Act was incapable of an exayt definition. There should hie a definition which was capable of being fully understood, so that traders might know whether thew were within the law or not. If the Act had not been brought into operation or were repealed, not one holiest trader would endeavour to take advantage of it. The Government should face the position and explain that the High prices were due to economical uses.

The Prime Minister agreed that profiteering was merely one cause of high prices. The most important causes were reduced production, increased demand, shortage of supplies and high wages. It had become the business of the Government to show the people that profiteering was not the sole cause of high prices and that if profiteering existed it would be punished. Tlie Government was anxious to keep down the cost of living to the consumer. It was anxious at the same time to avoid being harsh or unjust to the traders. He could not recollect that at any stage the Government had discriminated between the retailer and wholesaler. A solution of the cost of living problem was to be found largely in an increase of production. He agreed that the farmer had been doing very well, but other sections of the community should not forget that practically everything the farmer required in his business had more than doubled in price during recent years. He did not think any injustice had arisen from the administration of Clause 24, requiring the supplying of information about businesses. The principal difficulty that had arisen was in regard to the definition of an unreasonable profit, under Clause 32. The deputation was asking that provision should ]be made for replacement. This very point had been discussed when the Bill was before a committee of Parliament and the statement had been made by experts that if profits were allowed to he based on a replacement value, the Government might as well leave legislation alone, since it would lie impossible to secure a conviction in any case. Tlie Government would take into consideration all the arguments that had been advanced by the deputation. He believed, that if the Board of Trade Act were amended during the present session, it would be made a better Act from the point of view of both the traders and consumers.