L—l3a.

I would respectfully submit that we would prefer (b) but we prefer to exclude petroleum oil from the Bill, assuming, of course, that the Bill should proceed so far as foodstuffs are concerned. The Chairman : They are not going to stop at that. The resellers are coming at the Government for price-fixation. We have had a number already. Mr. Spratt: As I have said, "It is further submitted that the only practicable measure for controlling price-cutting of petrol is the exercise, when and where necessary, of the power to fix prices." We say this : that the mere demonstration for the first time only of the power of the Government to step into a situation that presents itself to the Board of Trade and fixing the price of that article until further order would so teach the trade that it would deal with the thing adequately. As a matter of fact, although there have been very few occasions on which the Commercial Trusts Act has been invoked by the Government, the fact the Government has the power to invoke it and was willing to invoke it on proper occasions has kept certain combines in check, and we say the same thing should be made to apply to the resellers where a price-cutting situation crops up. That is all I have to say. (Remainder op " Opinion re Commercial Trusts Amendment Bill " not quoted by the witness.) If the Bill were to be passed in its present form the giving of discounts and rebates, &c., would be made more easy and could be made to operate so as to prevent free dealing on the part of the resellers. There is the same objection to applying the Bill to paragraphs (a) and (6) of section 4. In our opinion, any modification of the Act, except paragraph (c) of section 4, should be strenuously objected to. Such legislation, if it applied to section 3, and the other parts of section 4, and if made use of by the oil companies, could only tend to segregate the retail trade into separate divisions. The object of each oil company would be to get as many exclusive resellers as possible. We should imagine that the tendency would be to disrupt the present Resellers Association and to increase the degree of pressure and of control that the oil companies could exert. 9. We think we should add that the Commercial Trusts Act is of use to the reseller if, and only if, the Government of the day, and especially the Minister of Industries, is willing to use his powers. The remedies are for penalties and injunction, but only in a civil action instituted by the Attorney-General in the name of the King. It has been held by the Court of Appeal that a breach of the Act gives no right of action to any person suffering therefrom. The proposed legislation can only weaken the hold of the Government over the oil companies. 154 Featherston Street, Wellington. 20th August, 1935. (The Committee rose at 5.30 p.m.) Notes op Evidence taken in connection with the Commercial Trusts Amendment by the Industries and Commerce Committee at the Parliamentary Buildings on the 10th October 1935. (Chairman : Mr. A. D. McLeod.) The Secretary to the Committee read the minutes of the previous day's meeting. The Chairman : Well, gentlemen, we will take the same attitude in connection with those that are favourable to the Bill as we took in regard to those in opposition to the Bill. There has been a very large number of people writing in to me as Chairman of the Committee asking to be heard — individuals as well as associations. The objectors to the Bill, on my recommendation, got their evidence into small compass through their leading counsel, and I should be glad if those in favour of the Bill would do the same. We must endeavour to get the evidence through by next Wednesday or Thursday. Mr. Barnett, Solicitor. As representing those who are supporting the Government measure I do not intend to make any lengthy address —I have no address prepared. We have consolidated into groups as much as possible the evidence which was assembled and ready for delivery this week. There are still one or two who have had notice that the Committee will sit next week who have not yet arrived, and they would like an opportunity of giving evidence. I would just make this general statement on behalf of those supporting the measure, in answer to Mr. O'Leary : that the Act as it stands has been effective, as a protection to the public it has prevented combines and monopolies from fixing high prices. On the other hand, by the very reason that has prevented that, it has allowed to grow up and expand in a remarkable degree the price-cutting chainstore system. The extraordinary growth of chain stores has been due entirely to the protection which the price-cutter gets against the wholesaler. Now, the amendment proposed does not remove or in any way weaken the structure of the present Act; it leaves open to the Crown the right to prosecute for exactly the same list of ofEences ; all the amendment does is to say that if there is a prosecution the defendant shall have the right to plea as a defence that what he did was fair to the individual and in the public interest. Now, the weakness of the opposition is that they do not want the merchant to have that right—to plead that what he did was fair and in the public interest, and that, I submit, is the weakness of the whole opposition. The apparent and obvious fairness of the amendment must be verv embarrassing to those opposing it. That is the only statement I make. I shall call Mr. McCaul.

42