COST OF LIVING.

Taihape Daily Times, 5 September 1919, Page 6

COST OF LIVING.

MEASURES TO STOP PROFITEER’-J INGr_ ‘ . . PREMIER TAKING ACTION. : DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. 1 A W'EL'LI2\'GTON, :‘~;q-.r. 3. I In the House this afternoon, in axle‘ ing leave to introduce the Board of! Trade Bill, the Hon. MacDonald saidi the Bill was introduced because of a] letter which the Premier wrote to the} Secretary of the Board, and which he; (Mr MacDonald) considered refiectedi on the Board and hiinself as president. } He was convinced that no one \\'orked_. more assiduously to keep down the cost I of living than the members of theBeard, but they found they had in-i snfficient power. He personally hadzl given [definite ixistrnetions zbut. ex- | ploitation must be put dawn, but the‘ Department advised him tha: existing‘; lit-gfslation was ineffective for the pur-‘ pose. He then instn.'llet'e«l tlze De}:-al't lIICIIt to prepare legislatiori. ihri: wouldl be effective. He further s"nt offi:*el's to I i-‘i.u.»'tl'alia to- ma’l~:e inquiry on the spot as to the vcorking of the Ac.‘ there, and the information they gathered had been 3 embodied in the Bill he was int.roduc-.: ing. He was aware he could not pass; the measure this session. He therefore, I hoped the Premier would,‘ at The pl‘o}3(’l' i. -time, take the Bill up and put it on the Statute Book, sons to check profiteer.in;‘ and exploitation. L «llr Massey said that though the ex';isting Act was not perfect. he was adfvised that it. was workable, an-:l it‘ the } Act was rigorously enforced he thought a good deal could be done in the direc~ }tion of stopping profiteering, He had. ;s:eell Mr }.lar:Donald’s Bill. It was a good Bill, but not stringent enough in some respects under the circumstances., but itlwns l)eiilg‘_inlprovedp. He pro posed to introduce it at an early date. and he hoped -‘-.h‘e’H6"lise Wonlcl help him i to it ‘into law_ {He had. hoped when l the war was'ove_l* that. price.= w-‘»lli'c‘si drop. 'l‘hel'e was no sign _oi' that so: far; in t':lr?t; prices were Still SOtll'lli'g.‘ It would px"ob'ably he (l_'lS‘tliS'[l'()liS to 3 many if prices dropped suddenly, hut they at least would see'_that. no one‘ made undue profits, M Mr Parr said if the Board of 'l‘rade Act was impotent; it Wasa‘ pity itfi impoten«_v had only just. been di.~‘eoVCl'ed. He also thought it. a pity that so many rec_ommendation.=. ot‘ the Cost. of I.ivi“-' C<nnmiti?i7T'part-ielllm'lj.' that regal'(.lil‘.g the appointnient of ‘a. Food

Controller, had riot been given effect to. Mr ;\lcCombs said it was :1 pretty spectacle to see -two Ministers who had been specially charged with the matter, after five years’ war, being compelled to admit that no lCg‘iSitl.tloll had been passed to stop profiteering and reduce the cost of living. The National Government had a free hand to pass what. legislation it liked, and new they had confessed that practically nothing had been done. 1\:Ir Veiteh. declared the Premier had always excused himself on the ground that no specific cases of exploitation had been brought’under his notice. He himself had brought ‘specific cases under the Premier ’s notice but they had been consistently ignored. There was no evidence whatever that the GoVern~ ment had been in the least active in. tracking down profiteering. Sir John Findlay said he had seen the Bill before the House, and he bel'e\'(":‘i it \‘f:i.~' On.‘ of tilm mC.<t c’-ti"<“Clivr.| measures ever put before any I’arli:l- - of the world. The only \\':l_\' to deal with this question was to give wise and wide descretion to :1 trilnlnal that could be trusted. He was glad to hear the ]"reniier‘sa}' that he proposed to take the Bill up and pass it through Parliament it‘ possible. Mr MacDonald, in reply, defended the zldministration of the Board of Trade_ which, he said, in controlling‘ the prices. ot_ eommodities, saved the people of the Dominion millions of pounds. The motion was ;Igl'ee(l to,!:lnd the Bill read a first time.