PROFITEERING BILL

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 56, Issue 245, 29 July 1936, Page 8

PROFITEERING BILL

THE GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSALS.

OBJECTION BY OPPOSITION.

(Per Fress Association.) WELLINGTON, July 28

The Minister of Industries and Commerce (the Hon. D. G. Sullivan), in the House to-day, moved the second reading of the Prevention of Profiteering Bill. He said the Bill largely covered the ground of the Board of Trade. The reason for the Bill was that the Government was eminently a democratic one and desired to secure a fresh mandate from the House and the country and to inform them just what the Government proposed to do. The whole object was to bring the thing fairly and squarely before the country so that members might have the opportunity of expressing themselves upon the Bill so that the public would be as well acquainted as possible with the law as it affected them. He doubted if any Government had wider powers than the New Zealand Government under the Board of Trade Act. That Act was placed on the Statute Book by the Opposition when it was in power. It arose from an agitation by farmers who wanted protection against the high prices obtaining in the city. The penalties provided in the Bill were the same as those prescribed in the original Act.

The Bill, continued Mr Sullivan, would prevent profiteering, and if it was necessary to bring any person or body before the tribunal provided, he would not hesitate to do so, but lie would act in as reasonable a way as possible. When complaints were received it rested with the Minister and the Department whether the case would go to a tribunal or not. He thought if a complaint were made that the person against whom the complaint was made would be communicated with and allowed to explain the position. If the Department thought the price was too high it would say so, and if the person adopted an unreasonable attitude the Department would be perfectly justified in laying a charge before the tribunal. The business section would bo treated with every fairness and consideration. He did not think that there had been the widespread increase in prices that had been said. Mr Sullivan denied that the Government was one-eyed, hut said it had endeavoured to act in the interests of all concerned. He referred to representations that were made to him almost every week by the representatives of some industry or business asking for protection or price fixation, and said that when he read in the newspapers of complaints of Government interference in business it almost made him laugh. The Government was endeavouring to improve the position of the people, but it did not want tbe benefits it ■was attempting to confer on the people to be cancelled out by unjust increases in prices. He thought the Bill could be made to achieve its objective in a,reasonable way without harassing business people who were trying to treat the people fairly. .Mr Sullivan referred to the practice of certain stores, particularly chain stores, that sold certain goods at a low price, sometimes below cost, and compensated themselves for the loss by increasing the profits on some other goods. That, he said, made if very dVfficult for those legitimately engaged in the industry of producing those low priced chain store lines. He thought if the legislation had the effect of preventing that kind of thing it would be to the good of industry and not to its detriment. He fully expected to have the co-operation and help of businessmen. He had no reason to expect anything else. No protests had been received since the legislation was introduced, and he thought the Bill would be for the benefit of the people generally. He did not think anybody could fairly and reasonably take exception to the spirit of the legislation. Political Eyewash. The leader of the Opposition (tbe Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes) sai& that while on the surface there appeared to be advantages, when the legislation was put into practice it would he found that there would be disadvantages. He said, that the Bill was merely political eyewash, as it merely duplicated another Act and u as a waste of the country’s time. He agreed that much depended on the administration of the Bill, because there weie very disturbing clauses in it if it were not administered properly. He believed that the Minister would make the Bill as reasonable as possible. He asked why in defining the basic price it was necessary to depart from the practice in the original- Act. He; had no intention of opposing the Bill. ’lt was recognised as reasonable that there should be some protection of the public. Competition was effective in keeping prices down, and he did not think there would be any need to take action regarding what were known as luxury lines. The Opposition pointed out in earlier debates that it would be impossible to prevent prices from rising in spite of the Prime Minister’s statement that any increase would be stopped. Mr Savage: I said no undue increase. • Mr Forbes quoted remarks made by tlic: Prime Minister earlier in the session, and said it was now admitted that prices must be increased to meet the additional costs. The Opposition had always said that prices and costs would rise more quickly than wages. Hb predicted that it would be found necessary to increase wages again to meet rising costs. A trader had to be allowed a reasonable profit, and one would watch with interest the cost of living figures. Mr T. H. McCombs (Lab., Lyttelton, said the Government intended to go a step further than past Governments in that it intended to enforce the, legislation. He said the Board of Tiadc Act was almost a dead letter. It was the same Chambers of Commerce that asked for less interference in business that came to tbe Government asking for subsidy or the fixation of prices. He thought the Minister should take action in eases where common articles such as glauber salts were put up in

fancy containers and sold at three or four times the ordinary price. The idea of the present Government was to increase the standard of living, and the Government would see that the increased wages were not filched from tho people. Gulling the Public. Sir Alfred Ransom (Nat., Pahiatua) said that as was the case with the Board of Trade Act it was not proposed to enforce the Act but to enter into negotiations first, and he thought that was the proper procedure. He also criticised the Minister for placing on the Statute Book art Act that was already there. It was nothing more than a political gesture, a gesture that even a, child could sec through. It was an attempt to gull the people into believing that their interests were being safeguarded to a, greater extent than ever. He thought it was an extraordinary procedure to fix a date such as June 1 for the basic price. It would be necessary io take into consideration the position of the chain stores which were able to purchase goods in huge quantities at :a, more favourable' price than the small trader. He sincerely hoped that the outcome of the Government’s legislation would be in the interests of the people as a whole. Mr F. M. Schramm (Lab., Auckland East) said the Bill must be read, in conjunction with the Board of Trade Act which had been dormant for many years. Tho present Bill was more specific and more definite in relation to time. It was framed to protect the individual from exploitation, and also to protect the scrupulous trader against the unscrupulous trader. The Bill would tend to fix prices and lead to stability in industry. The Bill could not become an instrument of oppression as the matter of taking proceedings was in the hands of the Department of Industries and Commerce with the approval of the Minister. He thought it was right and proper that the tribunal should consist of a Magistrate alone, and that his decision should he final, otherwise it would mean that a. rich merchant could put the Crown to endless trouble and expense over a trifling matter. He thought the Minister should he congratulated on framing a measure that was fair to all parties. Mr H. S. S. Kyle (Nat., Riccarton) said that since legislation already existed for the control , of profiteering, the Government should lie content to use it rather than to bring in another measure. 'While the Minister might not have received direct complaints, there was a definite indication all over the country that business men were apprehensive. Mr A. C. Sexton (Ind., Frankton) said the Bill made the prevention of profiteering more specific than was indicated in the Board of Trade Act. He questioned the advisability of the constitution of the tribunals, and said there was a possibility of Magistrates leaning toward the Crown. “A Bit of Posturing.” Mr W. J. Poison (Nat., Stratford) ridiculed the Bill as a bit of posturing. The Government already had full powers to deal with profiteering. He suggested that the title of the Bill should be “The 'Prevention of Independent Thought,” or “The Prevention of Free Speech” or “The Prevention of Hostile Opinion.” The debate was adjourned.