FAIR PROFITS

Evening Star, Issue 15929, 8 October 1915, Page 2

FAIR PROFITS

THE GOVERNMENT’S SCHEME TO PREVENT EXPLOITATION. COST OF LIVING BILL. EFFECTIVENESS DOUBTED. IFeom Our Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, October 8. The Cost of Living Bill, which mainly pr'oposes to establish a permanent Board of Trade to investigate alleged exploitation ju foodstuffs, was the special subject of debate in the House of Representatives last night. It fired the democratic spirit of members whose mission in life is to help the worker in .a world where most nreu must earn their daily bread by the sweatnf their brows, but it did not arouse enthusiasm or draw forth applauding gratitude. The Treasurer emphasised the the fact that the Bill went • farther than any preceding legislation to prevent exploitation,. ami tiro difficulty of attempting to fix maximum, prices; but- many members .refuted to accept the measu "C as a. promising means of reducing tire cost of living. All the criticism arrived at a sjngje point; the propo.sed board will Inive no power to fix prices or to lay (to Ijorrow a phrase of -'Jr Wilford’s) exploiters by the bee). THE TREASURER'S CASE.

Sir J. G. Ward, explained the Bill at length. Its main object, he said, was to establish a hoard to deal will; all kinds of goods. 'Ticre were ail sorts of ideas existing ay. to what systems should he brought into operation to give practical effect to the proposals contained in the Bill. After a, very close examination of what had taken place in other par Is of the world, it seemed futile to attempt to irMst on a minimum or a maximum price for any articles jn the country. In every country. Ip, which this system had been tried ft had failed. Under the Bill it was proposed to establish a beard with very far-reaching ponces, whose real object was to prevent .exploitation with the foodstuff of the people. Ho did not object, and heAwAS sure PP ,o(hpr men in the country would object, to'traders getting fair profits! for any article they ’were engaged in the .-ale of. especially in a time of war. It was nnturallv in a time of war tjrat living became, higher and accentuated the interest taken in the problem of control of fond prices. He was certain that no one wanted to block the avenues of ligitimate trade. On the contrary, they wanted tn encourage it, and in every way improve trade generally through.ort the country. . It. was impossible at the. present time for a man with an ordinary salary, an average salary, to live and bring up his family—at all events, a young family It .war next- to impossible for,him t.o dr so and Ray his way.- (Messrs Bayne and Webb interjecetd a. loud and concerted ‘‘Jfenr, hear. ") Sir Joseph went on to state that ho wished it to be remembered that this law was not to exist only in times of wav. hut was to bo perpetuated' .in times of peace. f ‘ Commandeering ” plight be possible in war times to a limited extent, but his own idea was that, it- would he impossible in times of peace. In the. case of the “commandeering” of the meat, this was authorised hy a great purchaser, tho Imperial Government, who found tire money, but it wonhl be a very different thing if by them? selves, the Government had attempted to prevent the whole of the meat export. The same thing applied to butter ami cheese. —Borrowed Ideas.One of the chief objtcts of the Bill was to provide a permanent board wtih very fall ]iowers in order to. prevent exploitation taking place in this country. It was his intention when 'the Bill was in- committee to introduce an amendment- similar to a provision in the Commonwealth Act. where the words “contrary to the public interest’ - were inserted. In the absence of such an amendment-there would bo iio xiower existing in this country to enable associations to have prices fixed for articles when it would be in the interest of the masses of the people io have prices fixed. He referred to a celebrated case in Australia in which it was found that it was in. the. intercut of the public that an association, which formerly had been called a combination, should exist in order to keep down prices. He. desired to call, the attention of the House to the fact that t])e Bill contained proposals somewhat similar to material points recominended in the report of the Cost of Living Commission.

—Xew Zealand Suffers Least.— The attention of members was also called to what the speaker termed the extraordinary position in respect of the cost of living in Naw Zealand by comparison with other countries. Ho had looked into the matter, and had found that the cost of living had not- advanced as much in this country as in Canada, the United Stales, Australia, and the United Kingdom.

. —Material Increases.— At the same time the advance in this country had been very material. The advances in connection with foodstuffs, which were the highest, worn 34 per cent., and rentals were increased 20 per cent, by comparison with what they were many years ago. It was therefore necessary to have a system by which there could be prevented the placing of unfair prices On the top of fair and reasonable prices it was absolutely essential thatthere should be an effective system to prevent exploitation going on in New Zealand like, anything of the kind that had been provided in this country in the past. This Bill proposed to establish a permanent board. —'(’he Board's Strength.— Since the Bill was introduced it hud been decided to increase- the' number of the appointed members of the board from two to three in addition to the Minister of Commerce and industries, who would preside over the meetings -of the hoard from time to time, and to whom the hoard would report the result- of their inquiries and their recommendations. The salaries of the proposed members who were to bo appointed would, he hoped, be brought down in the Supplementary Estimates on the following night; Mr Poole: Put a Labor representative on tire- board.

Sir Joseph Ward replied that be was not going to make any promises. The whulo success of the board wciild depend on the personnel. (Hear, hear.) Men of experience and undoubted integrity would be required, and it would be nmssary to have them free from any interference, politically or otherwise. He did not want to say anything about- the composition of the board, but the members must be practical men. Mr Fletcher : They must- be alive. Sir Joseph Ward: ” I recognise that.” The Bill, he continued, was a considerable advance on any that hud preceded it. He then explained its provisions (which have already been published). It provided among other things that if the. Minister could not give entire attention to the matter in Ipmd he could delegate the right to exercise the powers under the Bill upon any one member of the beard, 'this will meet the case where district investigation may have to be made. —Comparisons with Australia.— ■ Sir Joseph Ward then proceeded to give some comparisons in the cost of living with Australia. Air Knihbs, the Commonwealth Statistician, had said that between the period'of, the month before the war and May, 1915, bread in Sydney bad risen 14 pea* cent., and in Melbourne 15 per cent., Adelaide 42 per’cent., Perth 42 per cent., Hobart 28 per cent. He submitted other figures, and assumed that the rise would be sinplar iu New Zealand, and it could therefore be seen how difficult would bo the task of arranging for a maximum or minimum price. Flour during (the last six months in New Zealand had fallen nearly £6 a ton. and it would have been impossible to follow it up and down with fixed prices, and yet give a fair return to the manufacturer. As to the future, it Was impossible to tell what the altered conditions as the result of the war would

years on, but the standard of living had gone up. In making comparisons with Australia rye had to remember tho different condition of things eymting in the two places. hr Australia the 'average weekly income per family of four was £4 15s Id, no against £3 4s 3d in New Zealand. The average weekly expenditure jn Nmv Zealand was £1 Os 2d, and £f 3s 3id in Australia, Tire exxiendituve ou the average income in New Zealand was 34 per cent., and the. avearge cost of food per cent, in all groups was 4s 5J,d per head, and in cases where the income was £169 l«n- annum, and with a family of four, 3s 8d- per head. In Australia The figure Was from 4s Sri to 4s llfd, In the case of .incomes of £169 it was 4s, as against 3h 8d here. The Alinister went on to point out that in the last 15 years the standard of comfort had risen very greatly, and wages had risen greatly. This had come with tho increase in the cost of living! the two went together. -STATE CONTROL v. BARGAINING. Air T. AI, Wilford said that members bad looked forward to the Bil| in 19J2. A Royal Commission was set up to inquire info the. question, and for the first, time they had that night heard that Commission’s recommendations praised. There seemed to be no clause of the Bill to show that the National Government realised the necessity, of substituting State Control for bargaining,. Unless this was dope it seemed that there could be no reduction in the cost of living. He failed to see where the proposed board had any power! He ashed the Alinister after the debate to show him one clause, in the Bill which would help the 'board to do anything. It was really a Commission with only powers to Inquire, and report, and he suggested that it would be an expensive method of ascertaining the position of these various matters. What was going to reduce the cost of living? -There was no Bill or Act in existence on the. Statute Book which enabled the individual monopolist to be controlled. Could tho hon. gentleman, or any member of the House, point to any danse on the statute law of this country or in this Bill which would allow the Government of the day to deni with the individual exploiter? The Commercial 'trusts Act of 1910 made no such provision. It dealt with exploitation by associations, but not by the individual, and to whom could the board report? Only to the Government, and the question was* not what the board were going to do, but whafwere the Government going tn do. “ You might as well attempt, to catch a flea in a rat trap as to catch the individual exploiter, ’’ added the speaker.

—A I’owcrless Board.— He considered that if there were going to he men to control economic conditions in this country, they must be men with power to mt immediately, mid must be given full confidence. The true success of the proposal depended tm the personnel of the hoard ; and if the power* to act were withheld there could be no determining factor in successfully carrying out the provisions of the_ Bill. If the board could lind exploitation. they should he able to go to the nearest, court and there liave the exploiter laid by the heels. The determining factor of the national need, the sole factor, was the Empire’s need. He proceeded to discuss at length the different causes of increases in the cost of living. It seemed to him that in the matter of war taxation the Government had gone the wrong way about the matte;-. ° Instead of imposing a, primage duty of 1 per cent., which would increase the cost of living, the Government should have first of all got into (tie war profits and eliminated them. Tlrey would have then found that the cost of living would have been reduced’ automatically.'' Free trade should have been advocated between all parts of the British -Empire, and an exchange of those surplus commodities without any tariff wall. The Bill made no provision to prosecute a trader who put ii) 3 the price of his commodity to a higher price than would provide profit <m Ihat aiticlc. Supposing butler factories were Flying nut by -way pf bonuses £90.000 or £oO,OOQ, as the case .might be, and the price of butter w{js fixed at U 3d or Is 4d. how was the Bill going to reduce the price of butter.' If it was found on inquiry that the producers wore getting 00 or 40 per cent, in excess of last year. how was the proposed board going to reduce the price of this article? He again* asked the Minister to show him one clause m the Bill that would affect the price of one single article of foodstuffs required by the people. OTHER CRITICS. Mr Eli criticised the -Hill from the point of view that it initiated nothing. 1 he,cost of living had been considerably reduced by the operations of the Slate com! mine and the State Fire Insurance Department, but there was no such practical proposal in this Bill. |.)r Nemman ■ contended that a Commission, to be of any use. must bo up to elate. He cited what Britain had done at the outbreak of the war in purchasing sugar and keeping down the price, and suggested that if the State here had nureaased 50,000 boxes of butter, at. sav. Is 4d. and put it into cold store it could have been sold during the winter and kept down the price of this article. Stale trawlers would have brought up cheap fish, ami the same coukl have been done in regard to wheat, if action had been taken -m time. He pointed to the economy practised in Germany, and the lectures of thrift given at the outbreak of war. .Something of the same sort of thing could have been done here. He thought the Bill would do good, but the whole success or failure would depend on the gentleman {ait in charge of the reforms it was intended to effect. M Combs (Labor] said the National Government, of which so much had been expected, had failed miserably in grappling with the cost of living. ° Mr Poole regretted that at the cloeinf stage of the session it was difficult for members to give, that close attention to the subject which it deserved. He hoped the Board of Trade would include one intelligent representative of the. masses. He was disappointed that the Bill did not promise to give immediate relief to the people from exploiters. He suggested that during the war the Government should commandeer primary products that were required-for home consumption, and a proportion for export, the producers to be given the full benefit of the price at which it might bo sold. Mr Webb (I-abor) asserted that an extension of the principle of State ownership promised the best means of securim*a reduction in the cost of living. He said that the Act of last session gave greater powers than the Bill before”the House.

Mr Hins was of opinion that the Government could not control prices. Heavy war profits had been made last year, but- the cost of production had increased. For instance, the price of bushand grass seed had gone up ICO per cent.

Mr Jsitt was disappointed at the proposals in the Hill. The Government had done nothing to divert the BJ, millions that were expended in alcoholic liquor aml horse racing. In London “shouting” under the new regulations, had decreased by 40 per. rent, “it was a solemn duty on the part of the Government to turn that money from nou-productive to productive channels. He admitted 't-hore were difficult problems to determine, and he could not believe that the Government realised the measure of expectation amongst the people of the Dominion that something would be done in this matter. Had the Government, without ,shillyshallying, limited the price of wheat ’fo 5s per bushel, it would have given the producers a fair price, and much discontent would have been avoided.

Mr Wright declared that, all attempts to fix prices had failed. They had failed in Australia, and would fail here, because the moment prices Were fixed in one direction something was dislocated in another ; therefore that was no solution of the problem. No critic of the Hill had made any suggestion that was of any ptactical value to help the Government. He favored greater State activities as the most likely solution of the problem. Mr Anstey considered the weakness of the Bill was that it did not propose to make inquiry into the cost of production as well as of manufacture. It did not propose to inquire into the economy of labor or into the difference in price received by the farmer for his wheat and tba. pdoi, Bkt&L A ipat $1 bread, , He

thought the -best means of regulating prices was State or municipal effort, but had no faith in attempts to fix prices. Mr, AUCiiljnm argued that it was desirable that manufacturers’ profits should not be increased, Air Parr held that the Bill gave all the power required by the Alinister, who should now go straight ahead in the endeavor to limit the cost of living. The debate was continued by Dr Thacker, Messrs A. Walker, and Payne (Labor). The last-named was addressing tho House when the Telegraph Office closed at 2 a.m. BILL PASSES FINAL STAGES. MUNICIPAL TRAWLERS SANCTIONED. [Per United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, October 8. - Sir Joseph Ward, replying on the Cost of Living Bill debate, said that most of the critics of the Bill had displayed ignorance of what is already on tlje Statute Book. All the power required to make the Bill effective already existed ; as a matter of fqct, when tire Bill passed we would have the most advanced legislation i:i the world. He quoted the Regulation of Trade, and Commerce Act- -to show that the Government could now fix maximum and minimum prices, or could commandeer produce during a time of war. 'When this Bill passed inquiry could'' • he- made, and then the system of control would be complete. He had been asked to state in plain language how individual exploiters could be got at. It was proposed to give the board power to investigate transactions, and when that information was secured there was power under the Commercial Trusts Act to prosecute any corporation or _ rndivdual suspected of exploitation. This Bill had been drafted having regard to the existing law, but, that fact had been overlooked, with tire result- that many of the critics had been misled, because they did not know what the law was. The Bill bad been criticised because the hoard had no power to prosecute without reference to the Government. Such power had not been given to any board, even under a Labor Government, in Australia. ' That, was his answer to the charge that the Government were weak and vacillating. He denied that tho Government’s taxation proposals put any burden on the worker*; while the policy of the Government waft to keep the rgte.of interest down, and this they were doing under the present Bill. Great powers were given to local bodies to establish municipal enterprises in tho interests of tho people, and if the powers conferred were not used to regulate prices by competition, then he would Ik- forced to the conclusion that those local bodies were not sincere in the requests made for iliose powers. He proposed when in committee to move an amendment giving local authorities the power to purchase trawlers for the pm pose of dealing in fish as a food supply. The second reading was carried on the voices.

The House then went into committee on the. Bill. On the motion 0 f the Alinister, the members of the board were increased to three. The Alinister also moved the following ns an additional power given to local authorities “ Establishment! equipment, and mnintennnco bv borough councils of trawlers for the pnrpo c e of engagim!in fish in a. and carrying on by such comp cils nf the business of dealing in fish.” The danse was agreed to. Iho Bill was reported ns amended, and read a- third time without debate.