PRICE CONTROL BILL SEEN AS PART OF SOCIALISATION

Greymouth Evening Star, 26 September 1947, Page 5

PRICE CONTROL BILL SEEN AS PART OF SOCIALISATION

WELLINGTON, Sept. 25. Strong criticism of the Control , of Prices Bill was expressed by j Opposition speakers in the second reading debate in the House of Representatives this evening. The attack was led by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr S. G. Holland) and carried further by Mr J. T. Watts (Opposition, St Albans). . . Mr A. H. Nordmeyer, Minister in charge of the bill, opened the debate, and other Government spokesman were the Minister of Finance (Mr W. Nash) and Dr A. M. Finlay (Government, North Shore). Mr Holland claimed that the legislation was aimed at every small shopkeeper, and gave the impression that the~Government regarded every such shopkeeper as dishonest. Mr Watts said the people had tolerated regulations during the war, but this new legislation was now foisted on the community as a permanent part of the commercial structure. The Government was not legislating for plenty of goods but for a scarcity. Guiding Principle Mr Nordmeyer said that when the Price Tribunal was set up his predecessor (Mr D. G. Sullivan) had laid down as guiding principles that replacement costs should not be accepted as a basis for fixing prices, that prices should be increased only on a unit basis, according to costs, and not on a percentage basis, and that the accounts of applicants for increases in prices should be produced to the. tribunal in support of any applications. Mr Nordmeyer said the provision in the bill against profiteering was almost identical with the one contained in the Board of Trade Act, 192. It was now .provided that it

would be no defence against a charge - of profiteering that the deplacement cost of certain goods would be much higher than their actual cost to the

person offering them for sale. The clause aimed at black marketing offences was also based on the Boaici of Trade Act. . It was an offence to offer ceitam goods for sale on condition that other goods were bought with them. This would not prevent retailers from ensuring that goods in short supply were fairly distributed among their customers. The Minister said the bill provided for a reasonable profit to manufacturer, wholesaler, and retailer while ensuring that prices charged to the public would be fair. '‘Softening-up Process” Mr Holland said the bill was another example of the Government making a temporary.war-time provision into a permanent part of New Zealand’s economy. It was one more step towards the socialisation of the means of production distribution, and exchange. It was an example of the war being used to introduce a measure as a kind of Softening-up process. As the Government was perhaps the largest trader in the country today, why should not the State be bound by the provisions of,the bill? asked Mr Holland. The Minister could not deny he was one of the chief architects of the Government’s socialisation policy and one.of the main enemies of private enterprise.,,. When the Minister held another portfolio he socialised doctors, chemists, private and maternity hospitals, and dentists to a limited but growing extent. The Government realised that the people of the country were not quite ready for State ownership, and it was going as far as it could to secure State control first. The bill was part of a long-range plan designed to place trade in an economic straitjacket. Mr Holland said some control was necessary because of the financial policy of the Government, which was deliberate and planned inflation. The 'bill had one great deliberate defi-

ciency: no provision was made fbr the pxamination or treatment ot which made control a evm Thp real need today was io competitive enterprise, which woiilc 2?ieanabundance of. goods a. reasonable prices. There was no justification for a permanent price conti ol stiuc tU The bill was aimed less at nriees than at limiting profits, lhe Government seemed determined to keep dividends down and so foice small investors out of the investmei Sdd compelling them to become dependent, through social security benefits,' upon the State. . Basis Of Price Fixing The bill provided no stable basis for Drice fixation. Were prices to be fixed on the costs ot the least eflicien manufacturers ,or of the most effiCi Mr Holland claimed that the tribunal was subject to Ministerial dictatorship. Appointments to the tribunal should be entirely outside political control. , Mr Nash said no honest trader had anything to fear from any power in the bill. All the advocacy of the Leader of the Opposition had been to protect the profitmaker and exploiter. It was inevitable that on a sellers market there had to be control or prices to protect the consumer. 11 freedom of supply and demand was the test, then nothing was more inevitable than that before 1951 New Zealand would be in the same position as it was in 1931, and if prices were allowed to go to uncontrolled levels, Ilion nemesis would follow in the fall of prices and wages. , , Mr Watts said that the bill showed that the Government would not trust the people of the country. The Oppoistion would support any measuie that prevented black marketing and profiteering. The main objections to the bill were that it sought to make price control a permanent part of New Zealand’s economy as long as a Labour Government was ‘in power. INTENTION TO FIGHT PRICE BILL (P.A\) CHRISTCHURCH, This Day. The determination of the Associated Chambers of Commerce to oppose strongly the Control of Prices Bill was indicated by the president, Mr Haskell Anderson, when speaking at the annual meeting of the Canterbury Chamber of Commerce last evening. “We are going to fight, and fight to the bitterest end on this,” said Mr Anderson. Mr Anderson said that the Bill, which would be having its second reading in the House of Representatives that evening, had been brought down at a time when it was not expected that price control would be put on the Statute Book and implemented for all time. At the national conference on aid to Britain the Associated Chambers of Commerce did agree that some form of continuance of price control was necessary to prevent inflation and protect the national economy, ; but they did not give an open mandate.