BUSINESS WRECKERS

Evening Star, Issue 21232, 13 October 1932, Page 8

BUSINESS WRECKERS

TRUSTS AND TRADE ACTS ARRAIGNED THE CHARTERS Rf THE PRICECUTTERS POWERFUL INTERESTS SEEK REPEAL [From Our Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON. October 13. On the grounds that the legislation was harassing to industry, and was preventing the development of sound private enterprise, a large deputation representing the commercial interests appealed to Mr Forbes to-day to repeal the Commercial Trusts Act, the Cost of Living Act, the Board of Trade Act, 1919, and the Board of Trade Amendment Act, 1925. Speakers pointed out that repeated requests had been made for repeal of the legislation, and it was hoped that this would be the last deputation to approach the Government. It was more representative than the others, and had the full authority of the commercial, manufacturing, and trade organisations of the dominion. The Acts had their origin in the socialistic ideas which began to make themselves evident in prewar days, and which possibly, had received an unavoidable impetus during the war. Their worthlessness was now being exposed by times of stress and depression. The idea behind the Acts was that, if the making of any profit was not a crime, it was at least a doubtful or unsocial act; but no greater service to the community could be performed by any individual than the building up of sound business, earning steady and regular profits. The Commercial Trusts Act, and what was left of the Cost of Living Act were the charter of the price-cutter, and were directly aimed at the building of sound and profitable business. They were a wrecker of sound business, and until recently had been made the basis of what was nothing more than blackmail. The pricecutters had gone to the distributors or manufacturers and had stated that, unless they were given concessions or privileges, they would deliberately cut the price of the manufacturer’s or merchant's goods, knowing full well that, because of these Acts the merchant and manufacturer could not retaliate. One would find a very definite relationship between failure to make profits because of these Acts and to-day’s huge unemployment problem. Prosperous traders of a few years ago were now among the ranks of the unemployed, and no small portion of the blame could be attributed to these Acts. The Board of Trade Act followed the principle of the Commercial Trusts Act, and was a constant menace to trade and industry. It would almost seem that it was deliberately designed to discourage the launching of new enterprise and the investment of new capital in industry. The power of control given the Minister under the Board of Trade Act was an obvious and outstanding threat to any enterprising person to inaugurate new industries or business. It was not suggested that the Government should relinquish all powers of investigation and supervision of industry and commerce. The commercial interests would raise no objection, but would welcome the substitution of a short, clear, straightforward Act giving power to the Minister of Industries and Commerce to make reasonable investigation and inquiry into the conduct of any business to ascertain and report to the Government whether or not such a business was being conducted in a manner prejudicial to the public interest. PREMIER'S REPLY NO REPEAL-ACTS MAY BE OVERHAULED Replying, Mr Forbes said that, in a matter of the nature mentioned, Cabinet would have to consider every aspect before a definite reply could be given. The tendency to-day in business was towards combination, and the Government had to be in a position to protect the general public from the operations of trusts or combines. (“ Hear, hear.”) On one occasion he negotiated with a firm in connection with the price it was charging for a line of foodstuffs, and had been told that no reduction in the price would be made. To-day that firm was suffering from price cutting, and asking for the repeal of the Act in order to deal with a situation which it had itself created. In regard to foodstuffs, he did not think the public would agree to any action being taken which would prevent businesses selling foodstuffs at the lowest possible price, even cost price. He remembered that when the cut rate grocers had commenced operations they had been told then that the trade would be ruined, but no such result had eventuated. There was difficulty in connection with the proprietary articles. In some cases there had been unjustifiable price cutting, and the Government realised that the man who invented or discovered a new article was entitled to reasonable treatment on the market. He could not say, however, what could be done in that respect, without careful consideration. _ There was no doubt that the Acts might b© overhauled, but the question of repeal was a totally different matter. It was essential that the Government should retain certain powers to deal with combines. No doubt there were cases of hardship, but it was the duty of the Government to consider all sections or the community. They asked tor the repeal of the Acts, and he could say definitely that they would not be repealed. But the question of the amendment would be considered, and the representations would be gnen due weight. REGULATIONS DEFENDED The Hon. R. Masters defended the. issuing of regulations. “It is extraordinary,” ho said, that, alt hough the Acts have been on the Statute Book so long, there are really only four regulations operative to-day. 3 He claimed that there had been no abuse in icgaid to the issue of regulations. Dealing with the Order in Council issued in respect to theatres, the Minister said that not one business man present would stand for such interference from any trust as had been attempted. It they had had the same pistol placed at their heads bv a combination, telling them that unless they were prepared to hand over 50 per cent, of their profits out the organisation putting in one penny, business would bo put up against them, they would not have stood for such interference. That was the reason for the Order in Council. Only that morning the Minister had received official inforn tion that the deputation did not represent the picture theatre proprietors of New Zealand. Ninety per cent, of the proprietors stood by the Order i.i Council.