PRICE CONTROL

Hokitika Guardian, 22 July 1936, Page 2

PRICE CONTROL

THE NEW TRIBUNAL BUSINESS MEN’S VIEWS AUCKLAND, July 21. The announcement made last week by the Minister of Industries and Commerce, the Hon D. G. Sullivan, that a judicial tribunal to prevent unjustified rises in prices is about to be set up does not appear to be causing any undue alarm to the business men most likely to b'e affected by such legislation. The general view seems to be that any impartial inquiry into business costs would be welcomed as tending to promote a closer understanding betw9en the Government and commerce and to lead to a fuller appreciation 'of the business problems of the day. It was pointed out by several that the proposal , was only reviving powers that were used by the Department of Industries and Commerce during war time to prevent profiteering through the abnormal conditions then existing. “The price fixing tribunal is not likely to worry employers to any great extent,” said Mr J. S. Dawes, president of the Auckland Employers’ Association,’ who explained that he proposes to give a carefully' considered states ment on the position within the next day or two. “As a mattenof fact the more the Government investigates and finds oqt the actual pos’tion the better it will be. At present they are under the impression that .the earning power of labour is .very much greater than it actually is,, and they probably have an exaggerated idea of the profits bong made by employers. “I should say that the attitude of employers at present\seems to be that they will be only too 1 pleased, to welcome the fullest inquiry into industrv. The more the Government makes itself conversant with the actual facts of industry the better it will b'e. Indeed some are saying it is a pity that they, did not investigate before. 'Mr Dawes added that he did not think that employers were worrying much about the Government interfering with any rise, in prices, but what was troubling them was economic conditions which in competitive industries might limit and would limit the rise in prices. This applied not only to competition from outside the country, but from small employers within the ccuntiv wn<y employed little or no labour and worked under conditions which enabled them to compete unfairly against larger-em-ployers who were bound by legal restriction:?. An economist of Business experience remarked that the Government appeared to be setting up as many boards as it abolished, though it might call them by different names. He was of opinion that business men would not like the new legislation. Tt would be inconvenient for them 1 to have to supply particulars of the wotking of their business, and the system was linhb to a Ruse ,' f sl v : People wboi Tiad a erricyans« against a firm could make things unpleasant for it.bv lodfUng a’complaint on verv slender foundation, and there seemed a likelihood of firms obtaining information about the business of their rivals to be. us nr l to the disadvantage of those rivals. He did not know of any precedent for such legislation apart from the war-time powers of the Department e c Tnd ii*trie« and Commerce to inquire into profiteering.