PRICE CONTROL

Marlborough Express, Volume LIV, Issue 189, 11 August 1920, Page 3

PRICE CONTROL

TRADERS DENY PROFITEERING

INCIDENTS AT A DEPUTATION

[FROM OUR CORRESPONDENT.] WELLINGTON, Aug. 9. "We have been hearing mostly of of one side for a long time; now we hear the other," was the Prime Minister's comment when a large deputation representing the wholesale and retail traders of the Dominion submitted to him and to the Hon. Mr i Lee, President of the Boaid of Trade, several suggestions to amend the Board of Trade Act. The most important was that the replacement I value should be recognised in assessing the reasonable price of articles sold. There were different views among the deputation as to whether profiteering had taken place. Mr Luke (Member for Wellington North), who introduced the deputation, said that lie had no sympathy with profiteering, but th© merchants and retailers had a right to be heard in their own defence. Mr E. H. Wyles (Christchurch) declared roundly that there had been no profiteering in business, if the matter was looked at reasonably raid the profits were viewed from the point of the whole business turnover. He strongly complained of the Board of Trade Act as a reflection on the whole business community. It did not comply with the traditional principles of British justice, because it assumed that there was profiteering, and a business man had to show cause why ho should not be dubbed a profiteer. Profiteering, declared Mr W. Gow (Dunedin) went a. long way further back than the retailers. It must be traced to the source of supply. The Prime Minister had declared that the producer was entitled to the full benefit of the open market. "But, he added, "you tell the business w.m that he is not entitled to the benefit of the open market, but has to bo under control. The export of New Zealand's produce has had the effect j of bumping up the prices against the » local consumer to an extent far greater than the farmer realises by the export of his produce." Mr Massey: "Would you stop export?" Mr Gow: "No; I would take care that the local price was reasonable." Another speaker (a prominent Welt lington grocer), declared that under ! the terms of the Act any officer of j the Board of Trade could go into his ; shop and pick a profiteering; ease, ( though he was following tho ?ame ) principles as he followed twenty years, ago. Mr Massey: "You say that you are guilty of profiteering?" The Grocer: "Yes; according to section 32, because the Act does not take the circumstances into consideration." Mr J. O. Entrican (an Auckland provision merchant) -said that his firm I made a gross profit of 5 per cent, on 24 articles which were common necessaries. The firm's expenses were 9£ per cent. last year. Mr Massey: "You mean the net profit?"

Mr Entrican replied in the negative, adding that they lost £5 per ton |on salt and 20 per cent, on candles j and reduced tea 4d per Ib, which was i r/iore than the Colombo reduction. "Were any of you gentlemen in the ; House when the Board of Trade • Estimates wore discussed the other ! night?" asked Mr Lee. "You mean when Mr Wilford went wild?" queried a deputationist, who ; admitted that the Government was iup against a. very strong element in I Parliament. i _ Mr Wyles: "We think that they don't understand it." Mr Massey, in the course of his reply, suggested smilingly that Mr Gow's education must bt> defective when he talked about the prices of exported products. The Government arranged for the sale of moat at the .freezing works at Imperial schedule rates, while it paid £200,000 as a subsidy to keep down the price of butter and £200,000 to keep down the price of bread. "How much longer we will be able to go on I don't know," he remarked. ' He emphasised the> nead of encouraging production if New Zealand was to bo enabled to carry its financial burdens. Ho reminded the deputation that there was a, class in the community v-hich all the time tried to make political capital out of the alleged inactivity of the Government, declaring that profiteering was rampant. Mr Leo, apropos of the objection to publicity, remarked that in Australia, the inquiries were published and everything was given to the newspapers. "Every gentleman present real- j iFGS," declared Mr Luko, "that if there was no Board of Trade Act it would be God hold New Zealand"; but th© deputationists indicated their dissent.