THEATRES AND MONOPOLY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21239, 20 July 1932, Page 10

THEATRES AND MONOPOLY.

A licence for a new picture theati-e at Rotorua has been refused by the Minister of Industries and Commerce in exercise of powers conferred upon him by an Order-in-Council issued in April last. The authority for these regulations is the Board of Trade Act, 1919, which gives wide scope for Government interference in business. It sanctions regulations "for the prevention or 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." The final section removes all limits giving power to regulate and control industries "in any other manner whatever which is deemed necessary for the maintenance and prosperity of those industries and the economic welfare of New Zealand." It is rather unfortunate for Mr. Masters' case that another clause provides for regulations for the "prevention or suppression of monopolies," for the creation of monopolies is the direct consequence of these iniquitous regulations. A continuation of the policy will suppress all new enterprise in the picture industry, protect existing theatres from fresh competition, and ultimately give monopolistic value that attaches to hotel licences. It is an outrageous interference with legitimate business. For what reason has one branch of the entertainment business been singled out for protection accorded no other except the retail liquor trade 1 ? That a great tourist resort should be among the first towns to suffer the new commercial tyranny will throw a particularly revealing light upon its dangers. Among the considerations the Minister must take into acc'ount is whether existing theatres are adequate for the normal requirements of the locality. By what method has Mr. Masters estimated the normal requirements of Rotorua, the greater part of the theatre business of which is done wi4h visitors whose numbers, notwithstanding fluctuations at a time of economic difficulty, show a steady expansion? In a tourist resort more than any other town, public interest is served by the keenest competition among entertainers. Yet the Minister declares for stagnation. Not only has his order deprived the town of another amenity»for tourists, but also a piece of enterprise that would have provided a good deal of employment ffnd trade. On the mqst flimsy pretext he is throttling development and expansion and creating monopoly. '