Chambers call new bill nightmarish

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33934, 29 August 1975, Page 3

Chambers call new bill nightmarish

(New Zealand Press Association > WELLINGTON, August 28. A “nightmarish web.” “business bashing,” and “restrictive”—these were some of the reactions of the business community to the revised Commerce Bill, introduced in Parliament yesterday.

The president of the Associated Chambers of Commerce (Mr A. M. Jolly) said today: “We are back to where we started.”

Despite the effort by so many in preparing long submissions on the original bill it seemed that the basic concepts that reflected on the integrity of the business communitv remained, said Mr Jolly. 7

“The complex and restrictive provisions again form a nightmarish web, which will mean a further waste of productive time in interpretation and application," he said.

Words deleted “One amendment is significant. The preamble to the original bill referred to the ‘regulation of trade practices of all kinds.' “These last words are not in the new preamble. We had pointed out that if the Government wished to restrain some business trade practices it should, in fair-; ness to all. take similar steps to restrict some of the industrial practices which inhibit trade and increase costs far more than those; which this bill seeks to control.

“We asked that we be consulted before the introduction of the new bill, but this did not happen. Now the bill is not even, to be referred to a Select Committee.

“The Minister is deter-, mined to impose this as well; as the maximum retail price scheme on a long-suffering business, community and further add to costs,” said Mr Jolly.

‘More screws on’ The executive director of the Retailers’ Federation (Mr E. I. Purdy) said that the Government had to stop “business bashing.” Retailers could not be expected to face open competition if they could not buy on a competitive market. “Distribution is getting tied up, and the Commerce Bill is putting more screws ion the distribution system.” ; It was imperative that the! ;Government should not rush! [through one of the most! (complicated pieces of legis-i jlation before it was adequately debated. Mr Purdy said, j Mr W. A. Poole, the research director of the Bankers’ Association, said that he wondered why such restrictive legislation was thought to be necessary. “I have yet to see the case which demonstrates the' need for this legislation,” he said. Anything which relied on

the concept of public interest to justify its stance would be wrong even if right when written, because,' public interest, or the needs I of the day, would change. "It is very difficult to determine in real terms ex-1 actly what the public inter- ’■ est is. The legislation will prove to be out of date in ai while.” Mr Poole said.

Some changes The public relations man-, ager of the Manufacturers Federation (Mr T. R. Shaw); said that it appeared the Minister had taken note of a number of points on which the federation and other or-j ganisations had been making! representations. “It is a , long, complex piece of legislation, which, will require very detailed' study, and when we have, completed this the federation! will make a further statement on its views of the! bill,” said Mr Shaw. The secretary of the Stock; Exchange Association of! New Zealand (Mr I. D.' McAllister) said that import-' ant improvements appeared! to have been made in that appeals could now be made to the court on matters of fact, as well as law. and apparently the merger and take-over provisions now re-i lated only to specific fields.

Detailed examination of; the bill was needed to discover the new provisions’ effects on the problem of! over-fragmentation of industry.

Assumption of guilt “It is noted with regret that the onus of proof of innocence still rests on a trader accused of profiteering, despite amendment of the original provisions. The assumption of guilt should not be acceptable in our legal system," said Mr McAllister.

“The association sees a conflict of law emerging between legislation such as the Commerce Bill and the disclosure laws such as the Companies Act, or the Protection of Depositors Act. This is an aspect of legislation which should be deeply studied before the Commerce Bill is passed. “It is hoped that time will be allowed for expert examination on this point and for public submissions to be carefully considered and prepared for presentation to a [Parliamentary committee,” [Mr McAllister said.