ANTI-TRUST LAWS

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 3, 3 July 1931, Page 11

ANTI-TRUST LAWS

A SOUND PREVENTIVE

NEW ZEALAND"S POSITION

Addroasing the Economic Society of Australia and New Zealand on Wednesday on "Tho Development of Anti-Trust Legislation in New Zealand," Mr. R. J. Nankervis pointed out that the local legislation was merely preventive and not positivo, and its powers had only been enlisted in two cases, yet the fact that it remained on the Statute Book was a.factor in preventing trust formation. •■ *' The fact that most of the imports entered through four main ports gave abundant opportunity for the operation of commercial monopolies. Industrial monopolies were of minor importance in New Zealand. The trust problem in 2Tew Zealand had never been, and was never likely to be of a magnitnde comparable with that experienced in America, whore the most striking forms had been industrial, but it was significant that most of our legislation had been induced by reports from America, and fear of a similar occurrence here. Various measures passed in 1905-07 and consolidated in "The Monopoly Prevention Act 1908" were tho first enactments dealing with this enbject. The first effective legislation wag "The Commercial Trusts Act 1910." BOARD OF TRADE. The Act of 1910 was amended to a large extent by the Cost of Living Act of 1915, which established the Board of Trade. The provisions of the former Act were now made to apply to all articles of food for human consumption, and ingredients used in the manufacture of such articles. 'The powers and duties vested in the board contained, to a largo extent, the recommendations made in the Cost of Living Report of 1912. The Board of Trade Act, 1919 gave the board more powers of inquiry and contained special provisions for the prevention of profiteering. Previously many investigations had failed, merely because the penalty for refusing to produce books or for non-disclosure 6f material facts was too small. The Acts of 1915 and 1919 were invoked for the regulation of trade generally, and incidentally under this wide heading the' question of combinations and trusts was included. Very few complaints were received by tho board alleging infringements of the Commercial Trusts Act 1910 and its amendments, and they assumed from this that the trade of New Zealand was free from the operations of commercial trusts. In 1923 all the powers conferred upon the Board of Trade were vested in the Minister of Industries and Commerce. TREE FROM TRUSTS. Having dealt with the only two cases itt which the aid of the legislation had been invoiced, Mr. Nankervis said that tho investigations seemed to prove that the country was comparatively free .frpm trust operations. A few* industries mentioned had at some time been subject to control,'but in no case had it b«en of a very repressive nature. In recent years there had been an inereasing tendency for indent agents to cut out wholesale firms, and a further development for big retail firms to do their own importing. It was impossible yet to foresee bow far those tendencies would a-dvauce, but at the present time it was safe to say that the great bulk of imports stiil passed throngh the hands of agents and whole»alo..dealers.^l.Apart from.legal prohibitions, the country did not lend itself ■well to complete trustification. Where all railways were State owned the granting of rebates for exclusive carriage contracts was out of the question, and no concern was likely to bo favoured at the expense of another. So Jong, as, the country owned its own railways and other public utility services, sueh as the telephone and telegraph, a aangerouß weapon was kept out of the hands of people who might want to build up powerful and undesirable monopolies.