DEPUTATION

Hokitika Guardian, 13 October 1932, Page 6

DEPUTATION

TO MINISTERS. , tt REFUSAL OF REQUESTS. (Per Press Association — Copyright.) WELLINGTON, October 13. A definite statement that the Government would not repeal the Commercial Trusts' Act, 1910, Cost of Living Act, 1915, and Board of Trade Act, 1925, was made by the Hon. GForbes to-day, in reply to a deputation representing commercial and manufacturing interests.

The deputation contended that ' the Acts were detrimehtLl to the building up of sound business, and that they should be replaced "by a simple 'act giring' the Government P owe r td‘ investigate and exercise reasonable control over business actvities.

Mr Stronaoh Patterson, who was the chief (spokesman, (submitted that the deputation was entitled to a clear, and decisive answer to the representations made. He said the opposition to these Acts .waA (growing stronger year by year; and month by month, and would go on growing stronger until it achieved its objects. In the course: of Ids reply Hon. Masters said the Commercial Trusts Act was passed to suppress monopolies in trade and commerce and although there might be thought there was no need for it, it might surprise Mr Patterson to know that there was-a case before the court. In some cases the Act was •really a sheet anchor for trader's, who had no desire to have anything to do with any. trust or combine, and wasalso a sheet anchor to those who need: ed protection from any combine that might abuse its position.

Mr Masters emphasised in' Regard to the bringing ,down of prices of foodstuffs that if the Commercial Trusts ■Act and Board of Trade Act were not on the statute book, the job of making reductions would be hopeless.

Mr Masters pointed out that the public were not reresented on the deputation. Wisely administered, the Commercial Trusts Act and Board of Trade Act were doing, , and could do a gre'at service to the people. . Hon. G. Forbes said the deputation was entitled to an answer. Naturally, in a matter of that nature, Cabinet would have to consider every 'aspect before a definite reply was given. The tendency to-day in business, was towards combination, and the Government had to be in a position to .protect the general public from the operation of trusts and combines ’.n regard to foodstuffs. He said he did not think the public would agree to any action being taken, which would prevent businesses selling foodstuffs a ( t the ' lowest possible price, even at cost price. There was no doubt the Acts might be Overhauled, but the question of repeal was a totally different matter. It was essential that the Government should retain certain powers to deal with combines. No doubt there were cases of hardship, but it was the duty of the Government to consider all sections of the community. The deputation had asked for ‘a repeal of the Acts. He could say "definitely they would not be repealed. Tire question of amendment would be considered and the representations made would be given due weight.