AUCTIONEERS BILL

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 55, 13 September 1928, Page 16

AUCTIONEERS BILL

. . ■» KEFUSAL OF BIDS CONTROVERSIAL POINT Tlio question as to whether an auctioneer should have the right to refuse bids at auction sales of iish, fruit, and vegetables was debated at sonic length when the Auctioneers Bill was before the House of Representatives last night. Mr. M. J. Savage (Auckland West) suggested that the Minister might take into consideration the question of reducing the license foes, in cases in which firms employed more than one auctioneer. The-Attorney-General (the Hon. F. J. Rollcston) said there was a good deal to bo said for a reduction of license fees, but the point was that the foes went to the local bodies concerned and not to the Consolidated Fund. The local bodies might object very strongly to a reduction. Mr. H. Atmoro (Nelson) asked why tho clause providing that lots should be sold to the highest bidder had been deleted by tho Statutes Eevision Committee. The Minister said evidence which had been given before the Committee showed that the clause would have been unworkable. Mr. J. M'Combs (Lyttelton) said the House would bo assuming a big responsibility if it deprived the public of tho opportunity of purchasing fruit and other articles at auction. Members of the public should'have tho right to purchase by auction whether they were in the trade or not. Mr. J. Horn (Wakatipu) agreed with the ucletion of the clause, as it ga^"o no protection to the purchaser or tho vendor. EEFUSAL TO ACCEPT A BID. Mr. M' Combs said it was the considered legislation of 1910 that an auctioneer could bid the reserve price in order to safeguard th^, vendors. He felt that the clause had been eliminated under a misapprehension. No reason had been given for dropping tho provision that it should not bo lawful for an auctioneer to refuse to accept a bid. In a public fiuetion room any person should1 be able to make a bid and have it accepted. -He moved for the re-in-sertion of the clause. Mr. D. Jones (Ellesmere) said the police had found thp clause impossible in practice, and therefore it had become inoperative. Mr. M' Combs might be right in theory, but in practice the clause was not workable. Mr. P. Fraser (Wellington Central) said even if the clause was not effective it should bo included in tho Bill as a safeguard. Everybody should have the right to bid at auction. Mr. Fraser suggested the, Minister should agree to report progress and go into the matter. Tho Minister said ho could not see his way to accept the amendment in view of tho unanimous recommendation of the Committee.- ■Ho thought the object of the clause had been to prevent any combination 071 the part of vendors in order to force up prices, but it was overlooked at the time the clause was inserted that the samo-argument would apply to a combination of buyers. Any auctioneer who attempted to place restrictions on sale would find that vendors would not come to the sale. There was a remedy in that way. EIGHT TO PROTECTION. Mr. Fraser maintained that it was unwise to accept the deletion of tho clause simply because tho Committee had been unanimous. The public had a right.to protection'becauso the auctioneers wore not immaculate. A few

years ago the Hutt Valloy was up in arms because tho growers there had a difference with an auctioneers' ring, and the result was that the Government had to come to the assistance of the growers by placing tho old To Aro Station at their disposal. The auctioneers were not always out to get tlio highest prico for the vendor, but to get as much as possible for themselves. It was time tho Government looked into the question of how tho auctioneers wore evading stamp duty in connection with the giving of receipts at auction rooms. Mr. 11. G. E. Mason (Eden) thought progress should be reported so that the clause could be re-drafted. This was supported by Mr. J. A. Lee (Auckland East), who deprecated hasty legislation. Mr. Savage suggested that an auctioneer should have to accept every bid made. Mr. Fraser said he was not going to take tho risk of any of his constituents being placed in the position of having a bid refused. AN AMENDMENT LOST. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. H. E. Holland) said he recognised that the clause could not operate as it stood. The Minister would be wise to defer the clause. He suggested that the

clause bo altered to provide that at any auction sale of fish, shell fish, fruit, or vegetables, subject to the vendor's reserve, every lot should bo sold to the highest bidder, and that it should not bu lawful for any auctioneer to refuse to accept a bid. The Minister of Agriculture (tho Hon. 0. .T. Hawkon) said the old clause compelled ono lot to be sold without reserve. If that was not sold tho rest of tho lots were not put up. Mr. J. Horn (Wakatipu): "That's not so. I've sold fruit for years and I know." It was customary to sell tho lot. Mr. M'Combs withdrew his amendment and Mr. Holland moved an amendment on tho lines of his suggestion reported above. Mr. M'Combs said that the clause which was being discussed had been inserted in the law in 1910 bocause auctioneers would refuse to accept bids except from regular clients. Mr. H. Atmore (Nelson) said he did not think the clause as drafted would effect tho purpose desired by Mr. Holland. He could not see how there could be any protection against a dishonest auctioneer. The amendment was defeated by 44 votes to 10, and the Bill was put through its final stages and passed with the amendments made by the Statutes Revision Committee.