Rings and Combines Suppression Bill.

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume IV, Issue 228, 12 July 1902, Page 3

Rings and Combines Suppression Bill.

In the House on Wednesday Mr Hornsby moved the second reading of the Rings and Combines Suppression Bill, to prevent the continuance or establishment of monopolies, rings, and combines. In giving a brief outline of the various provisions oi me Bill, Mr Hornsby said that it had boon urged that the operation of the Bill should be limited, and should be confined to food trusts. In regard to this aspect of the question, he wished to say that he did not want to sacrifice the principle of the Bill in the slightest degree, but if in Committee members thought it desirable to confine the operation of the Bill to two matters, namely, food trusts and tied houses, he would be perfectly satisfied, and would feel proud that he had brought the question before the House. In the course of his adverse criticism of the principles and methods of combines and trusts ho pointed out that the Millers’ Trust in New Zealand had caused the price of bread to be raised, and had attempted (as ho had foretold) to fix the price of wheat to farmers. It had been said that this trust had been brought about by the action of the labour unions, but Mr Hornsby denied this, and said that it was not a fair statement of the case. He dealt at some length with the attitude of some of the North Island meat companies towards sheep farmers, and said what had happened in this connection should bring about the establishment of co-operative freezing works by farmers themselves, who would thus be very much better off. He also condemned the system of tied bouses, and in conclusion asked the House to give the Bill fair and honest criticism and consideration, and to assist him to make it a workable measure.

Mr Gilfedder, in seconding the motion for the second reading, congratulated Mr Hornsby upon the consistent and persistent manner in which he had brought this question before the House. Ho spoke in condemnation of the Millers’ Trust, which he urged should be burst up, and expressed the opinion that the Bill would effectually deal with the nefarious system of tied houses. Combinations and trusts were now assuming such serious proportions that legislation was necessary to cope with them. Mr Thomas McKenzie said that Mr Hornsby had not quoted figures in support of his contention that the millers were making undue profits out of the people. He (Mr McKenzie) understood that the Millers Trust had been formed not to make undue profits, but to stop ruinous competition between millers, and he combated the assertion that the millers’ combine had attempted to reduce the price of wheat. He approved of the clause dealing with tied houses. Licensing committees in some parts of the colony abetted the tied houses, and if ever prohibition was carried in New Zealand it would be mainly through the weakness of such licensing committees. Mr G. W. Russell thought the Bill one of the most extraordinary he had ever seen produced in the House. He took special exception to the inclusion of an amendment to so important a measure as that governing the liquor trade. In fighting combines the bon. member was fighting a result of the labour laws, for it was a fact that the increased power of labour had necessitated the combination of ompi 've.-,.

They had to combine in favour of a good return for their work, so that they might pay the wages awarded by the Arbitration Court, if anything was done with the Bill at all, a committee should be set up by the House to hear evidence tendered by any parties likely to bo affected by it. Fie recognised Mr Hornsby’s good intentions in the matter, but in its present form the Bill was impracticable Mr Massey thought the Bill would apply to the Farmers’ Union. (Mr Hornsby : “Oh, no.”) Also to the various Dairy Associations. (Mr Hornsby : “ It does not apply to cooperative companies at all.”) Mr Massey went on to say that he had no love for trusts and combines, but he will not support the Bill now before the House.

Mr Fowlds was very heart.ly in sympathy with the objects of the Bill, but he could not support the measure in its present form. He hated monopolies in every shape and form, but he could not see that the Bill would remedy the evil. The way to prevent monopolies was rather to undo the present laws enabling monopolies to exist, than to make others for the purpose of preventing them. , Mr E, M. Smith opposed the Bill, and asked if such a measure became law what capitalist would invest his money in any undertaking u this colony. , _ Sir J. G, Ward said that the House should be careful not to injerfere with the natural course of trade! He thought that many proposals in the Bill would interfere in this direction. The Government intended to bang in a Bill to deal with the prevention of trusts which affect the food of the people, and in this connection he thought legislation was necessafy. It was, however, very difficult t> pass legislation in that direction which might not in some respects do unintended harm. The Government, however, were desirous of waithg to aee the legislation on the Object recently passed in America, He suggested that Mr Hornsby ahwld be content with the discussion bs BiU had evoked, and wait until th) proposals of the Government were brought down. He was not sure, however, U w;ou|d gt> better to refer the Government Bfj to a Select Committee. With regafl to the clause dealing with tied hoses; Sir J. G. Ward said that it had his approval, but the proper place fov it was in the Licensing Act. _ _ ' Mr Ell supported the pnncipj 0 f the Bill, and pointed out that ityas pot new, as in England gas Compaq

were prohibit' d " : nakinga greater profit than 8 per ■ m. Mr Fisher siid t . those who took I an inlern -L in < i ■• 1 imns.-s w add embark on a large undertaking when they proposed to pass the Hill dealing with the subject, but he contended that the roniedv was contain'd in the Holding of Public Houses by Brewers Prohibition Bill which he introduced in 18UJ and which was read a second time. He would vote for the second reading in affirmation of the principles it contained. Mr Laurenson realised the danger of some of the clauses of the Biß, but considered that it was an honest attempt to grapple with a great and growing evil. He would support the second reading because he was opposed to trusts in this country. Tl e second reading was agreed to.