Magistrates' Objections To Price Control Bilĺ

Greymouth Evening Star, 15 October 1947, Page 2

Magistrates ' Objections To Price Control Bilĺ

(P.A.) ,/' WELLINGTON, This Day. . Magistrates and judges should be unfettered in their’right, to make the punishment fit the crime, said Mr C. A. L. Treadwell to the Parliamentary Industries and Commerce Committee today when the committee heard submissions on the Control of Prices Bill.

Mr Treadwell, on behalf of the Wellington District Law Society, objected to the fixing, of a minimum fine and said it was indefensible to set a minimum penalty for a oriihe or an offence, as every crime varied in degree of culpability.

Mr Treadwell said New Zealand ’had great pride in its law and in the administration of it, and people could rely on magistrates and judges making the punishment fit the crime. The Bill proposed to take away that right'—a right that was inherent in the administration of justice. b Mr . Treadwell asked the committee to delete that portion of the Bill fixing minimum fines for offences. The views of the senior magistrate in Wellington and of other magistrates . were given, by Mr W. E-. Leicester, who said they were opposed to the imposition of a minimum fine. The magistrates felf they should not be in the position of administrative officers, to inflict a fixed fine, but they should be permitted to deal with the justice of each case. Master Grocers’ Case The case for the New Zealand Master Grocers’ Federation was presented by the secretary, Mr R. M. Barker, to the committee. Mr Barker said that as two years had elapsed since hostilities ceased, the country must once m.or,e be reaching a stage where competition —the proved best controller of prices—would aga.m operate to the advantage of all sections of the community. There was

ho juistification for bringing down a. Bill of 50 clauses when there already existed adequate legislation for controlling prices. . . Mr. Barker said the Price Tribunal should control prices, but not profits, arid the test should be whether the price charged represented good value. He objected to the wide powers granted the tribunal in requiring returns and suggested the tribunal should be required to give some reason fait the furnishirig of a return. A refusal to sell goods, unless other goods were purchased could be an effective means of ensuring equality of distribution. “Beyond All Reason’ The -minimum penalties were beyond all reason and it was absurd to think that a grocer might be liable for six months’ imprisonment because of an endeavour to ensure equality of distribution. He considered the penalties should be left to the magistrates to decide. “Th‘e Bill has so many undesirable features that it should be dropped and the existing measures, which have enabled the control of prices for eight years, should remain in force for a comparatively short time until Competition once again exercises its rightful role,” concluded Mr Barker.