RESTRAINT OF TRADE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 17909, 13 October 1932, Page 11

RESTRAINT OF TRADE

AMENDED LAWS URGED DEPUTATION TO PREMIER ACTS WILL NOT BE REPEALED (Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLIN UTON, this day. On the grounds that the legislation was harrassing industry and preventing the development of sound private enterprise, a large deputation representing commercial interests appealed to the Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes to-day to repeal the Commercial Trusts Act, t!m Tost of Livin'- Act, tlie Board of Trade Act, .1919, "and the Board of Trade Amendment Act, 1625. Speakers pointed out that repeated requests Intel been made for the repeal of the legislation, and it- was hoped that this would be the last deputation to approach the Government. It was more representative than others, and had the full authority of the commercial, manufacturing, and trade organisations of the Dominion. The Acts had their origin in socialistic ideas which began to make themselves evident in pre-war clays, and which, possibly, had received an unavoidable impetus during the war. Their worthlessness was now being exposed by the times of stress and depression. The idea behind the Acts was that if making any profit was not a crime, it was, at least, a doubtful or unsocial act, but no greater service to the community could be performed by any individual than the building up ot a sound business earning steady and regular profits. WRECKERS OF BUSINESS

The Commercial Trusts-Act, and what was left of the Cost oi Living Act, were the charter of the price cutter and were directly aimed at the building ol sound and profitable business. I bey were the wreckers of sound business, and, until recently, had been made the basis of what was nothing more than blackmail. Price cutters had gone to distributors or manufacturers and liacl state that unless they were given concessions or privileges they would deliberately cut the price of the manufacturer’s or merchant’s goods, knowing full well that because of these Acts the merchant and manufacturer cuuld, not retaliate. . One would find a very definite vela-, tionship between failure to make profits' because of these Acts and to-day-s lmgo unemployment problem. Prosperous traders of a few years ago were now among the ranks of the unemployed, and no small portion of the blame could be attributed to these Acts. The Board of Trade Act followed the principle of the Commercial trusts Act,, and was a constant menace to trade and industry. It- would almost seem that it_ was deliberately ‘designed-to discourage the launching of new enterprise and the investment of new capital in industry. The power of control given the Minister tinder the Board of Trade Act was an obvious and outstanding threat to any enterprising person to inaugurate new industries or businesses. It, was not suggested that the Government should relinquish all the powers of investigation and supervision of industry and commerce. Commercial interests would raise no objection, but would welcome the substitution of a short, clear, straightforward Act giving power to the Minister of Industries and, Commerce to make a reasonable investigation or inquiry into the conduct of 'any business to ascertain and report to the Government whether or not such business was being conducted in a manner prejudicial to the public interest. PRIME MINISTER’S REPLY Replying, Mr. Forbes said that in a matter of the nature mentioned, Cabinet would have to consider every aspect before a definite reply could be given.* 'The tendency to-day in business was towards combination, and the Government had to be in a position to protect the. general public from the operations of trusts or combines. (Hear, hear) On one occasion he negotiated with a firm in connection with the price it was charging for a line of foodstuffs, and had been told that no reduction in price' would be made. To-day that firm was suffering from price-cutting and was asking for a repeal of tlie Act in order to deal with a situation which it had 1 itself created. In regard to foodstuffs, he did not think the public would agree to any action being taken which would prevent businesses selling foodstuffs at the lowest possible price, even cost price. He remembered when the cut-rate grocers, had commenced operations they had been told then that trade would be ruined ‘but no such result had eventuated. There was a difficulty in connection with proprietary articles. 'ln some cases there had been unjustifiable price- 1 cutting, and the Government realised, that a man who invented or discovered a new article was entitled to reasonable treatment on the market. He could not say,'however, what could be done in that respect without careful consideration. There was' no doubt that the Acts" might be overhauled, but the question of repeal was a totally different matter It was essential 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. They asked for the repeal of the Acts, and he could say definitely that they would not be re-i pealed. * The question of amendment would be considered, and their representations would be given due weight.