Commerce Bill criticised

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33933, 28 August 1975, Page 14

Commerce Bill criticised

<N.Z Association) WELLINGTON, August 27. The new Commerce Bill, introduced into Parliament today, was described by the Opposition as legislation which would put prices up and inhibit competition rather than promote it. The Leader of the Opposi-I tion (Mr Muldoon) said the bill contained 117 pages and: had taken 10 months to prenare vet the Government had

consulted only 11 organisations during that. time. “Why so long?” he asked. “And why was a bill of

that magnitude and import-; ance introduced no more than ■ three months and two days I before they can announce an; election?” Mr Muldoon asked why the bill was not going to go to a select committee to let other interested organisations make submissions. He accused the Minister of j Trade and Industry (Mr| Freer) of producing 37 sepa-' rate pricing regulations, none of which had worked. The bill was full of the: “legislative gobbledegook” that characterised the Government. and did nothing to help the ordinary people, said' Mr Muldoon. The measure is a revised version of the bill of the same name brought before ’ Parliament last year and ’ withdrawn after criticism by 1 commercial interests. Introducing the new bill today. Mr Freer said that the measure had been “exhaustively” examined, and although not all objections had been resolved because some clauses concerned Government policy he felt a great deal of misunderstanding had been removed. The main differences between this year’s bill and that of last year related tc mergers and take-overs. The types of proposal that were required to be notifiec to the Minister were more limited than in last year's measure. Mr Freer indicated some commercial interests were still unhappy about the provision’s' placing an onus ol proof on businesses to justify their actions when trade

practices complaints were made against them. i But, he said, the onus of] proof did not apply until, after a company had an opportunity to redress a complaint, or until after consultations had taken place with investigators. The bill says that the com-; mission should be guided by the principle that free and: unrestricted competition is “prima facie” desirable, and; should have regard to the de-: mand or potential demand for! the goods in question. The commission will be able to take action against anv agreement between wholesalers, or retailers, who restricted the number of companies they would buy from, or sell to. on pricing agreements between wholesalers, retailers, and contrac-

tors. Trade-association agreements would also be subject' to scrutiny if they were not' in the public interest. But i specific approval for collec-tive-pricing agreements andi individual resale-price-main-tenance agreements could be sought from the Trade Prac-i tices Commission. There is provision for the commerce commission to hold hearings on reports bv the examiner of trade prac*ices. and thev could be held I in Public or private. Decisions of . the commission I would ho subject to anneal to the administrative division I Of the Siunreme Court.. I.eoiclattnri nacsed 'ast near 1 to deal With n-vram-'d sell’no : would be renea’ed hv the hill, but it is incorporated in the new measure. ■ Commerce commission (members would have a term ;not evceedinn five vears. Tn I the bilt introduced la«t year •their term of office was not

> to be more than three years. I The commission could sit lin separate division at the II direction of its chairman, . with the concurrence of the . Minister. Previously, the Government intended that the ’ Minister would give the direction. : Collective, bidding at aucItions would be made illegal I by the bill, as would be .(hoarding — if it tended or [lwas intended to raise the most of other similar goods Jto the public. Mandatory trade-ins and ,'profiteering — the offering for sale of goods and services at prices which were unreasonably high — would -also be illegal. In cases of profiteering no account. ,(would be taken of the cost [ to the seller of the goods. [ The price might be found un-1 Rirrl-l if it UlOrD QA

reasonably high if it were 20 per cent or more above the maximum price permitted under price-control legislation. If the goods were not subject to price control and the ; price charged was 20 per cent ;or more above the prevailing j price a charge could be brought. The bill also provides for the Government to gazette goods or services which would be subject to profiteering charges if the price were simply “unreasonably thigh.” The measure also defines factors to be taken into account in considering (whether a wholesaler is proIfiteering through multiple wholesaling. Individuals found guilty of breaches of the profiteering sections of the bill could be fined up to $lO,OOO and sentenced to prison for six months. A corporation could jbe fined up to $50,000.