GOVERNMENT AND TRADE

Taranaki Daily News, 8 February 1928, Page 9

GOVERNMENT AND TRADE

INTERFERENCE JUSTIFIED MINISTER SPEAKS PLAINLY. TRADE ASSOCIATION DROPPED. Bj Telegraph.—Press Association. Nelson, Last Night. Speaking at the conference of the NewZealand Master Grocers’ Federation, the Hon. A. D. McLeod, Minister of Industries and Commerce, said the committee that dealt with the recommendations of the Proprietary Articles Trade Association did not come to a decision until it had given the very closest consideration to all the best evidence available from all parts of the world. As regards Government interference in business, it was hard to know where it was going to start and where it was going to end. If a trade was going along all right and making a fair profit, then it should be left alone, but where an unfair profit was taken for the services rendered, then the public would demand that the Government step in. Mr. McLeod said that he did not think stability in a country was built up by growth of a huge monopoly, but he was sure the Empire owed its present solidiarity to the multitude of small shopkeepers who exhibited a spirit of healthy independence. Where monopolies existed, then the Government had to interfere, either by entering into competition themselves or else laying down fixed prices for the commodities concerned. Thus it would be seen that the necessity for State interference arose in trade itself and if it was proprly conducted Government had no cause to step in. In th© course of the federation’s annual report it w-as stated that it was with profound regret that “we have to report that the proposed Proprietary Articles Trade Association following an enquiry instituted by the Government, has eeased to exist. “The attitude of the trade was presented in a comprehensive statement submitted by the secretary before the committee was appointed to conduct an inquiry. Without wishing to reflect upon the personnel of the committee, your executive regrets that parties interested had no opportunity of making any recommendation as to any appointment which should be made thereon. Whilst fully recognising that such appointments must necessarily finally rest with the Government, there is no gainsaying the fact that if the approval of the parties concerned was first sought it would tend to make impossible much dissatisfaction such as was manifested during the enquiry to which reference is here made. The executive does not feel called upon to pass any comment upon the value of the evidence which was brought forward, recognising that members were well able to form their own judgment from the detailed report of the enquiry. Suffice it to say that those directly interested were far from being satisfied with th© committee’s findings.”