Bill provides for price controls

Press, 11 October 1979, Page 6

Bill provides for price controls

PA Wellington Responsible traders would have nothing to fear from the Commerce Amendment Bill now before Parliament, said the Minister of Labour, (Mr Bolger i, last evening.

It was aimed only against those Who sought to put aside economic responsibility,' he said Mr Bolger was speaking in the second-reading debate on the bill, which enables the Government to impose price restraint on particular goods or services. It was originally introduced to enable the Government to deal with the “flow-on effects" of the then 11 per cent settlement of the drivers' award The Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr Adams-Schnei-der), who introduced the bill, said the Government’s present powers under the Commerce Act did not allow it to be selective in its pricerestraint policy. The bill allows regulations to be made imposing price restraint on goods and services not subject to price control The regulations could limit profit margins, prescribe methods by which prices of goods or services are calculated. limit costs that can be taken into account in calculating prices, limit the profit of any business, limit the frequency with which prices of any goods or services can be increased, freeze prices of goods or services, override any criteria required to be considered in fixing prices, and suspend any procedure for fixing prices. Mr Adams-Schneider said: ‘The zeroing in on a price restraint basis on specific marketplace mischiefs cannot be adequately fine-tuned under the Economic Stabilisation Act, 1948. and cannot he resolved at all in terms of the existing Commerce Act.” Last evening he dropped from his prepared secondreading speech notes references to the bill’s being introduced as the result of the drivers’ award dispute. Mr Bolger said the bill was designed to deal with “selective situations” where some-, one was trying to fix exces-

t sive prices for goods or sert vices. It did not impose blanJ.ket controls. The Government would not i! allow any business sector or i-group to act irresponsibly in !|terms of New Zealand’s ‘ broad economic interests. >•' “It is important that this bill should proceed so we I have the capacity to intervene ('selectively in the prices are- - na.” he said. Many industries, including the transport industry, worked on a simple “cost plus” I basis. Mr W. W. Freer (Lab., Mount Albert) said the Gov- • eminent should say if it in- • tended to use its powers uni der the bill to stop transport • firms from passing on the drivers’ wage increase. ; The bill was a sham, he : said. It had been introduced (because the Government was determined to wield a big stick. “Everyone knows that if ■ the Prime Minister decides that the Minister of Trade and Industry should exercise : his powers under rhe bill against a section of the business community or against an individual trade, the Min- ’ ister will dutifully do as he ■ is told,” Mr Freer said. The bill was being put ‘ through to enable the Prime ! I Minister to dictate to the • Minister. “How is the bill going to be used, and when?” Mr : Freer asked. > Mrs Ann Hercus (Lab., Lyttelton) said the bill was ■ brought in to “blackmail and I I threaten” the drivers’ employers. and this had failed. “It has got nothing to do< with consumer interests,” she ; '.said. I The bill’s provisions were - unfair and unreasonable and • made no provision for the right of appeal by traders or; consumers. The Deputy Minister of Finance (Mr Templeton) reiter-f ated that the Government ac- i cepted the decision of the Ar-; bitration Court on the dri- i

■ vers’ case. But he went, on to • say he thought that the wage terms, and certainly the alt lowances. were too high for ■ the good of the industry and i The nation. > Mr Templeton, who with Mr Bolger and the Deputy ('Prime Minister (Mr Taiboys) (■is at rhe forefront of attempts ! ; to hammer out a wages policy with the Federation of Labour, said the Commerce! : Amendment Bill was a signa! ‘ ■ to employers and employees! ' that restraint was needed. Mr R. O. Douglas (Lab-I . Manurewa) said the lack of; • a proper investment policy: ■ in the public and private sec-; ■ tors was at the root of the, nation's economic problems. ( “If this bill is the Government’s answer to New Zea- ( land’s economic problems I there is really no hope for > New Zealand at all,” he said. I The bill would allow the Government to interfere in I the running of any private; ‘•business in the country. The: ' Minister could control prices: - and profits of any company.; I “That is the power that Parliament is about to place : t in the Minister's hands,” Mr' ■! Douglas said. “It's a monstt rous bill.” The bill did not spell out t the basis on which the Min- : ister could limit profits and > lcontrol prices. , He asked how the Govern- j ~ ment could posibly enforce ; profit limits. “Quite frankly, this legis-! lation is nonsense. It’s not; ; capable of being imolemen-: I ted,” Mr Douglas said. ; Mr Adams-Schneider, replying, said that if any regulations under the act gave j the pricing authority discre- . tion to control prices or pro- : fits there would be appeal provisions in the regulations.! “I refute the allegations by 1 ; Opposition spokesmen that } 'we have taken awav the* ; right of appeal,” he said. I I The bill was given a se-t icond reading after the Gbvi ernment won a division, 41 j I votes to 28.