OTHER SPEECHES

Evening Post, Volume CXXII, Issue 25, 29 July 1936, Page 8

OTHER SPEECHES

'BOTTOM DOG FOR A CHANGE'

The fact that there was a return to the 1931 standard of wages did not mean that there was going to be a return to the 1931 cost of output of goods, declared Mr. T. H. McCombs (Government, Lyttelton). In the past five years, he said, there had been increased efficiency in manufacture. This had resulted partly from increased skill of the workers and partly from improvement in factory management and distribution brought about by dire necessity. It therefore did not follow that there must be a return to the 1931 cost of output. The Government, said Mr. McCombs, was going to see to it that the increased wages were not going to be filched from the workers by that class of people who believed that everything the Government did was for their benefit. The present Government was out to increase the standard of the bottom dog for a change.

The procedure in the present Bill, said Mr. McCombs, was very much simplified. The Government admitted the right of business men ,to recover increases in costs, but not to go further than that. He instanced the position in the timber trade, stating that the timber merchants had wanted double their increase in costs until the Minister took action. In many cases the price was not determined by the cost of an article, but by the demand for it. In spite of chambers oi; commerce clamouring for more business in government and less government in business, those same people came to the Government asking for restrictions, for this or that subsidy, or for a fixed price. There was necessity for some control of prices, as many business people had the idea that there was plenty of .money about and they wanted to get some of it. "WINDOW-DRESSING." Sir Alfred Hansom said the Bill was an addition to the Board of Trade Act, which was not repealed in any sense. The Bill was just newspaper advertising on the part of the Government, for there was absolutely nothing new in it. Apparently the Government thought that past Administrations had been so sound that there was no need to do more than amplify slightly Acts already on the Statute Book. The whole Bill was a political gesture that a child could see through—mere window-dressing. It' was aimed to justify statements which had been made by the Prime Minister that prices would not rise as a result of the Government's legislation. The Minister's statement that business men usually made a "pot-shot" at what should be charged for goods

was most extraordinary, said Sir Alfred. The Minister: Your statement is ridiculous and incorrect. I said "some business men." Why not tell the truth? Sir Alfred Ransom said that, as to timber, a friend had told him that the pnee had gone up by 40 per cent, in some cases. The Minister: Your friends seem to tell you any old thing. Sir Alfred said he would be prepared to produce figures and argue the matter with the Minister. He referred to the danger of fixing the current price on the rates ruling on June 1, and said that at that time of the year there were usually sales. That might mean that they would have sales prices all the year round. It would be necessary to take into consideration the position of chain stores, which were in a position to import goods at a cheaper rate than other stores. He suggested that the Government did not possess the necessary experience to deal with the problem. MORE SPECIFIC. Mr. F. W. Schvamm (Government, Auckland East) said the Board of Trade Act had been dormant for some considerable time. It was on the Statute Book but nothing hod been done under its provisions to protect the public for a long period. The prosent Bill was more specific than previous legislation and would protect the people against unscrupulous traders. The Bill would lead to stability oi' prices. The profiteering penalty was the same as in the Board of Trade Act. It was a right and proper penalty. The Act could not become an instrument of oppression. He had no doubt that no proceedings would be instituted against any trader unless the Minister was satisfied by the reports of his departmental officers that there was more than a prima facie case. In reply to an interjection, Mr. Schramm said he did not think there should be provision made for appeals. Cases would consist of questions of fact and a Magistrate was the proper person to hear them. Mr. Schramm quoted ancient history and said that under' the Babylonian Kings there was price fixing. A law dealt with the price of bread and if a baker sold bread short-weight the penalty was that he should be himself baked in the oven the bread had been baked in. Mr. H. S. S. Kyle (National, Riccarton) said all the Government had to do was to invoke the provisions of the Board of Trade Act. The Government had apparently made the discovery that one effect of it's recent legislation had been to send up the cost of living. He saw no reason why Magistrates who were dealing with cases under the Bill should receive more remuneration than Magistrates dealing with other classes of cases. The Government was simply doing away with boards and setting ■ up tribunals in their place. There was a general feeling of apprehension amongst the business people as to the likely effects o£ the Bill; they were afraid that they would be harassed. Mr. C. M. Williams (Government, Kaiapoi) said that in many cases the legislation that had already been passed had been used unjustifiably for increasing prices. Many traders were exploiting a rise in costs. If private enterprise was left unchecked, costs would tend to rise above wages. The Bill would give the Government a good weapon with which to prevent monopolies. MORE SPECIFIC. Mr. A. C. A. Sexton (Independent Country Party, Franklin) said that the Bill made the prevention of profiteering more specific than as'indicated in the Board of Trade Act. The Bill would have the effect of restraining unscrupulous traders and would allay the public mind. He questioned the advisability of the-constitution of the special tribunals, and pointed out that there was a possibility of the Magistrates leaning towards the Crown. When deciding a reasonable profit, consideration should be taken of the profit that was being made-on June 1. ' Mr. %. J. Poison (National, Stratford) said that every modern business man knew that the lower the prices : of goods the greater the quantity that I would be sold. Why should the Government introduce the Bill when similar legislation already existed? The Minister would admit that the Board of Trade Act had prevented exploitation of the public. The member for Kaiapoi had revealed the purpose of the Bill. It was a clumsy device, a clumsy subterfuge, to deal with the opponents of the Government. The title of the Bill, he considered, should be changed. Instead of being called the Prevention of Profiteering Bill, the title should be changed to "Prevention of Independent Thought," or "Prevention of Free Speech," or "Prevention of Hostile Opinion." The competitive system, said Mr. Poison, was the one system that secured to everybody in the community reasonable prices. It seemed to him that for business aptitude the Government was substituting political aptitude, as if vote catching was taking the place of 'industry building. Real recovery was taking place in this country without all the restrictions that the Government was imposing on the trading community. Good business was based on sound competition in every department, from the most primary forms of production upwards. Mr. H. M. Christie (Government, Waipawa): This Bill doesn't prevent sound competition. Mr. Poison: This Bill is a threat to every trader. Mr. Poison said he was satisfied that any attempt by the Magistracy of this country to deal with such a complex problem would lead to , endless diffl- ' culties. ; The debate was adjourned.