Safeguards Over Industrial Agreements Urged

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29764, 6 March 1962, Page 14

Safeguards Over Industrial Agreements Urged

(New Zealand Press Association)

QUEENSTOWN, March 5. After discussing “the widespread controversy over secret agreements" today the New Zealand Retailers’ Federation decided to ask the Government to make a law that would prevent further dissatisfaction. Mr R. D Gilchrist (Otago) moved a remit that the federation request the Government to consult interested national business organisations before granting agreements to trade or manufacture in New Zealand involving any form of exclusive protection. The remit was prompted by “the now notorious and defunct Nelson cotton mill agreement,” Mr Gilchrist said. High on the list of the more contentious aspects of the agreement were “a degree of protection almost amounting to complete monopoly and the secret manner in which the agreement was drafted and ratified by the Government.” Manufacturers, retailers and the public were left “well in the dark” about the agreement for more than a year, and the many ambiguous terms in the agreement showed that the Government was not fully conversant with trade practices. The agreement was prejudicial to

the consumer, Mr Gilchrist said. Mr Gilchrist withdrew the remit in favour of an amendment by Mr S. L. Moses (Wellington) “that in view of the widespread controversy over secret agreements this federation request the Government of the day to make legislative provision to the effect that any suggested protection, by way of tariff or quantitative restriction or both, to be given to any industry should not be decided upon until interested parties have had an opportunity to state any objections before an independent authority ” This was passed unanimously. "Protection Secret” “The thing that is secret and dangerous is the protection granted by Government, unknown to anyone else until at or past the point of no return.” Mr Moses said. If statutory provision was made to enforce consultation over agreements, it would be difficult to defeat it. short of a government going to Parliament to change the law again. Mr W. L. Dalton (Auckland) said: "It is fortunate we had a change of Government, otherwise, no doubt, we would have been committed to the Nelson cotton mill agreement.”

Recently two more secret agreements entered into with aluminium interests had been disclosed. New Zealand had been "trying to go too far, too quickly, without the Study and benefit of commercial minds that the business warrants.” Nelson, Hawke’s Bay and Auckland all brought forward remits on price control and it was decided that the federation continue to press for the total abolition of price control on lines handled by retailer members. Mr A. Winter (Hawke's Bay) said: "Price control is obnoxious to us all We have lived with it since IM3. The sooner it is abolished the better it will be for trading in the Country as a whole.” Assisted Immigrants The conference decided to protest to the Government against the reduction in the number of assisted immigrants to be brought to New Zealand during the current year. Mr E M. Friedlander (Otago) said that the Chambers of Commerce had repeatedly asked the Government to look into the question. but recently there was a statement from the Minister that the number of immigrants be reduced from 5000 a year to 2500. “Staffs are depleted. . . • There is not enough labour in the country to man industries. We want more industries, but where are we going to get the manpower to start them?” Bringing immigrants was expensive, but it was money well spent, Mr Friedlander said. Mr Winter said the big problem of the country was concentration of industry in the wrong areas. The biggest export from his district was labour. On the east coast, north of Napier, there was a surplus of labour. The conference decided that its taxation vigilance committee be asked to review existing rates of company taxation with a view to allowing a greater carryforward of net profit. The Auckland remit proposed that the committee request the Government to reduce the rate of company tax but did not propose any change in retention tax provision. A remit that the Government be requested to impose a form of tax on cooperative societies, whether or not such societies trade with the intention of making a profit, was approved after discussion in committee.