PRICE-CUTTING EVIL

Taranaki Daily News, 30 March 1935, Page 9

PRICE-CUTTING EVIL

ACTION BY GOVERNMENT TRUSTS ACT AMENDMENT FEARS OF THE OPPOSITION WILL PRICES BE RAISED? By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. The Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes in the House of Representatives to-day moved the second reading of the Commercial Trust Amendment Bill. He said the Bill had been asked for by many sections of the people. Deputations had asked that the Commercial Trust Act should be repealed, but the Government had refused that. It agreed to consider any case where genuine hardship existed. When the Bill was originally brought down it was designed to, protect the public against rising prices or exploitation, which was a proper thing, but where it was recognised hardship was caused some assistance should be given. Time and again petrol retailers had appealed to the House to protect them against price-cutting, and the Bill was designed to protect also the manufacturer whose "products were threatened by excessive price-cutting. Before anything could be done it had to be shown to the satisfaction of the court it was not to the detriment of the public welfare. Mr. W. Nash (Lab., Hutt) said the Bill was. nothing more nor less than pricecutting. He asked who was to take action. Mr. Forbes: The Government would take action. “EVADING PRESENT LAW.” Mr., Nashcon tended that the Bill only extended the provision for evading the present law. He suggested the Bill should also cover'’'cases of retailers selling articles at under cost. He felt the Bill would be harmful and would make prices higher. The Bill was the thin edge of the wedge do the fixing of prices, and he claimed that the objects of the Bill could more easily be achieved by increasing wages and improving working conditions.Mr. C. A. Wilkinson (Co., Egmont) said the Bill was entirely against the public interest. Prices were too high already and were stopping trade. The Bill would make them higher. The Bill simply gave manufacturers or importers power to withhold supplies if the price was too low and if they could show it was ..not against the public welfare to do so. He contended the Bill should go to the Industries and Commerce Committee, before which interested parties could give evidence. The aspect of certain firms employing girls as “wrappers” at low wages should be looked into, and the ' girls should be paid the same wages as the employees of other firms. Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Lab., Avon) agreed that the Bill should be held over for further examination. Eyen though a grave problem did exist at present the Bill would replace one evil with a greater evil. He contended that it would be definitely unfair to force such an important measure through a thin House in the closing stage of the session. “FORCE OUT WEAKER FIRMS.” ■ Mr. H. M. Rushworth (Country, Bay of Islands) said that under the Bill combines would be formed which would force out the weaker firms. yMr. M. J. Savage (Leader of the Opposition) said one effect of the Bill would be that.prices of goods most commonly used would go up withodt the people’s incomes being increased accordingly. If the Bill became law the Commercial Trusts Act, 1910, would not be worth the paper it was written on. Mr. W. J. Polson said the Bill might have the effect of raising prices to the farmer. He urged the Prime Minister to refer it to the Industries and Commerce Committee of the House for investigation and report. Mr. A. S. Richards (Lab., Roskill) said that any practice would be possible under the present Bill and there was very little chance of prosecution. Mr. Atmore said he was satisfied the Bill had been introduced in the interest of the big business firms and not in the interests of the people. My. P. Fraser (Lab., Wellington Central) suggested that instead of sending the Bill to a committee the Bill should be sent to the wastepaper basket The small trader would be squeezed out and woujd be ruthlessly exploited, he said- The implications of the measure were so great that the House could not grasp them, and consideration of it should be postponed. The debate was adjourned and the House rose at midnight till 10.30 a.m.