Commission's Methods Criticised By Counsel

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29192, 30 April 1960, Page 14

Commission's Methods Criticised By Counsel

(New Zealand Press Association) J WELLINGTON, April 29. A decision was reserved today by the Trade Practices Appeal Authority (Judge Dalglish) in a case which might affect many other similar cases in the near future.

An appeal was made by the New Zealand Council of Registered Hairdressers against an order by the Trade Practices Commission which barred an alleged price arrangement or agreement by the council. Dr. 0. C. Mazengarb appeared with Mr L. G. Rose for the hairdressers, and Mr G. S. Orr represented the commission.

Some features of the inquirylast year and some sentences in the decision of the Trade Practices Commission might be of ,interest to a person with a pen of a W. S. Gilbert, said Dr. Mazengarb. But there were other features which were serious, and these might have repercussions among those who sold goods or services. When the inquiry opened counsel assisting the commission had disclaimed any intention of attacking the charges recommended by the Council of Registered Hairdressers to its members, said Dr. Mazengarb. The hairdressers were told that the Commissioner of Trade Practices (Mr H. L. Wise) had considered that a recommendation on prices was contrary to the public interest and the commission had supported this opinion. t The act said the commission must first find that there was an agreement or arrangement of the nature specified and then that this was contrary to the public interest.

Charges for haircuts were not at issue, said Dr. Mazengarb. The commission, however, had accepted Mr Wise’s statement that what the hairdressers had done was against the public interest. It had then flung on the hairdressers the onus of proving that this was not so. The hairdressers wanted to have Mr Wise called to state why he considered their action contrary to the public interest. The chairman said the commission did not want to call Mr Wise and had left it to the hairdressers to call him as their witness if they wanted to know his reasons. Dr. Mazengarb submitted that the hairdressers’ price recommendations were titled an agreement only for the purpose of registration, that compliance by hairdressers with the recommendations did not indicate an arrangement if no pressure was applied, and that there was competition among hairdressers. Procedure at the Trade Practices Commission hearing was completely fair and proper and * complied with the act, said Mr Orr. He had said he made 1 it clear to Dr. Mazengarb well before the case opened, and again at the hearing, that the case submitted for the commissioner was that the hairdressers’ prices were not in the public interest. For some unexplained reason Dr. Mazengarb ) had ignored this advice, and in

evidence and submissions at the hearing had said he did not know the nature of the case against his client. There was no cause for this statement.

The fact that it was stated in a list of prices, sent to hairdressers by the council, that styling. appointments and special cuts might be charged extra indicated that the recommended prices were expected to be adhered to.

The circumstances of hairdressers must vary according to locality, and there was no justification for a common price throughout the country. Bearing in mind that the act was aimed at encouraging competition, how could anyone say whether the price fixed by the hairdressers was reasonable? Mr Orr asked.