NO REPEAL OF ACTS

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 257, 13 October 1932, Page 7

NO REPEAL OF ACTS

COMMERCIAL TRUSTS, COST OF LIVING. AND BOARD OF TRADE. PREMIER’S DEFINITE STATEMENT. REPLY TO DEPUTATION. By Telegraph-Press Association. Wellington, Oct. 13. A definite statement that the Government would not repeal the Commercial Trusts Act, 1910, the Cost of Living Act, 1915, and the Board of Trade Act, 1925, was made by the Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes to-day in reply to a deputation representing commercial and manufacturing interests.

The deputation contended that these Acts were detrimental to the building up of sound business and that they should be replaced by a simple Act giving the Government power to investigate and exercise reasonable control over business activities.

Mr Stronach Paterson, who was chief spokesman, submitted that the deputation was entitled to a clear and decisive answer to the representations made. He said that the opposition to these Acts was growing stronger year by year and month by month, and would go on growing stronger until it achieved its objective. In the course of his reply the Hon. R. Masters said that the Commercial Trusts Act was passed to suppress monopolies in trade and commerce and, although there might be thought to be no need for it, it might surprise Mr Paterson to know that there was a case before the Court. In some cases the Act was really a sheet anchor for traders who had no desire to become involved with any trust or combine. It was also a sheet anchor to those who needed protection from any combine that might abuse its position. Mr Masters emphasised with regard to bringing down the price of foodstuffs that if the Commercial Trusts Act and the Board of Trade Act were not on the Statute Book the job of making reductions would be hopeless. Mr Masters pointed out that the public were not represented on the deputation. Wisely administered, the Commercial Trusts Act and the Board of Trade Act were going and could do a great service to the people. PROTECTION AND PUBLIC. Mr Forbes said that the deputation was entitled to an answer. Naturally, in a matter of that nature Cabinet would have to consider every aspect before a definite reply was given. The tendency to-day in business was toward combination, and the Government had to be in a position to protect the general public from the operation of trusts and combines. With regard to foodstuffs, he said he did not think that the public would agree to any action being taken which would prevent businesses selling foodstuffs at the lowest possible price, even at cost price. There was no doubt that the Acts might bo overhauled, but the question of repeal was a totally different matter. It was essentia] 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 of the community. The deputation had asked for repeal of the Acts. He could say, definitely that they would not be repealed The question of amendment would be considered an dthe representations made would be given due consideration.