The Manawatu Daily Times Board of Trade Act

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 7190, 23 June 1933, Page 6

The Manawatu Daily Times Board of Trade Act

Mr. A. S. Burgess, president of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, has very properly renewed attention to the fact that the Board of Trade Act of 1916 .is still on the fetatute Book, to the continued menace of trade and commerce throughout the Dominion. This peril to legitimate business was assailed by the Taxpayers' Federation live or six years ago, and the lion. A. J. McLeod, who then, among other responsibilities, was Minister of Industries and Commerce, framed an amending Bill which would have removed the clauses in the measure to which the Taxpayers’ Federation objected. As it happened, however, the general election of 1928 removed Mr. McLeod and lus colleagues from office, and the United party, supported by the Labour party and led by Sir Joseph Ward, took possession of the Treasury Benches, where a review of the Board of Trade Act appears to have met with little favour.

Under the offending Act, as it still stands in the Statute Book, the Minister in charge, with the authority of “The Gov-ernor-General in Council,’’ may make such provision as no may deem necessary for the following purposes. “For the prevention and suppression of methods of competition, trading, or business which are considered to be unfair or prejudicial to the industries of New Zealand, or to the public welfare; for the prevention of monopolies and combinations in or in relation to any industry in New Zealand, and for the establishment of lixeu maximum or minimum prices or rates for any classes of goods or services or otherwise for the regulation or eontiol of such prices or rates.’’ It is further provided that when any of these regulations is gazetted it immediately copies into force whether Parliament is sitting or not.

Nor is this by any means the end of the authority bestowed upon the Minister, fortified by the compelling power of “The Governor-General in Council.’’ The public at large is told that “for the prohibition, regulation or control of different prices or rates for goods or services, or the differential treatment of different persons or classes of persons in respect of gsods or services in cases where the existence of such differential prices, rates or treatment is considered prejudicial to any industry in New Zealand or to the public welfare, the authoiity of the Minister, endorsed by his Excellency, completes the matter. Further than this, “for the regulation and control of industries in any other matter whatever which is deemed necessary for the maintenance and prosperity of these industries and the economic welfare of New Zealand” may rest safely in the hands of an inexperienced authority. Surely the Government is not going to allow this state of affairs to remain indefinitely unattended.

The Government has held these emergency powers for nearly sixteen years since the conclusion of the Great War and for fully twelve years after any plausible excuse could Der iound for their retention. It still may arbitarily fix wages and prices; may suppress any industry that it considers prejudicial to any other industry; may assume any control of any private enterprise that catches its fancy and may ruin any individual who may obstruct the path of its ambition. But it is the politicians, particularly the members of Parliament, who should be moving in this matter. While they remain silent in the presence of such a glaring travisty of British fair play they must share with the Government the blame for the continuance of this outrage upon the Dominion’s progress and its good name. Mr. Burgess has done gjood service to the community in this matter, and it is to be hoped that his effort will meet with general approval end effective assistance.