Inequitable Competition

NZ Truth, Issue 1215, 14 March 1929, Page 6

Inequitable Competition

embryo and fully-fledged New Zealand statesmen are constructing their nicely-rounded phrases, moulding and combining them of much' that is truthful, yet much that would be disconcerting, manufacturers and commercial executive's are disturbed by the rapid developriient of the cash-on-delivery system which flourishes between the Dominion and the multiple store organisations m England. Buying and selling through this system appears to hold some attraction for a large number of people m this country attracted by the prices of, goods advertised m overseas catalogues, for. between 1924 and 1926 the number and value of C.O.D. parcels delivered by the Post Office increased nearly 400 per.,cent. A most superficial commentary upon the situation would inspire the reflection that the postal system of New Zealand should not rightly be used as the go-between for English trading houses. which have-not, m the majority of instances, a single share m "the country's prosperity. , . . ■•■•:; .':■. .' • .;■ ••■.'.. ' ■ „ „ .The question of , interfering-, or attempting \to interfere, with the liberty .of individuals- is not the bias of the complaint raised by New Zealand's trading houses. On the contrary, a good many admit that householders and others have an unqualified right to make purchases from outside countries, provided the money is remitted m advance, and the onus of collection is- not placed m the hands of the Post Office here. ' <'■ - It has been pointed out, and rightly, that although these multiple" stores do not accept one tittle of risk m the matter of receiving payment for goods "dispatched, since that is accepted by our own postal authorities, they glean much profit from soil they do not till, while New Zealand employers of labor are harassed by the diminishing figures of their profit and loss accounts. There is no justification m the argument that mail-order services maintained and developed by the- larger drapery firm's' m this country are almost parallel with the remittance-on-receipt system employed by houses whose goods are shipped from other shores, because the local institutions 'hold a very definite stake m this country. They should be protected against a method of trading, wjhich, from the national viewpoint has little to,, commend it.