1.—13 a.

Is there any reason why you have altered your views on a matter of this kind ? —There may be reasons, but it would take a long time to explain them. Is there more chance of getting what you are asking for now ?—Yes. You said in 1927 : " In conclusion, I submit for the consideration of the Committee the desirability of amending legislation which shall extend the scope of the P.A.T.A. in relation to those goods which at present it is prevented from dealing with, so that the manufacturers and distributors shall have a right to demand a measure of protection against the ignorant and reckless trader, the number of whom would appear to be rapidly on the increase." You also said that the prices should be approved of by the Department of Industries and Commerce : do you still want that ? —No ; it seemed that we could not get that, and we would not ask for it. Mr. Ansell put it to you —and I submit that he was quite correct—that the position is different in England because there is no Commercial Trusts Act. Is that not so ? —-Yes. Now, this inquiry from which you quote was set up in 1930, and I suggest that behind this there must be a great dissatisfaction in connection with the present position that enables price-fixation without remedy. Would you not read that from the fact that this important Commission was set up to investigate it ? —Yes. I want to say here in regard to the Commercial Trusts Act that what we have asked for is the removal from the Schedule of the foodstuffs which were affected by the Cost of Living Act in 1915, which I think the Chairman will admit was definitely a war measure. Ido not think that is right. In the original Act of 1910 the Schedule shows specific articles of food "... Meat, fish, flour, oatmeal and other products or by-products of the milling of wheat or oats." That was in 1910 ? —But in 1915 everything went in. Yes, that is so. The inquiry into the cost of living sat in 1912, and it cannot be said to be a war measure or the result of anything to do with the war. The cost-of-living inquiry sat in 1912, which was two years before the war ? —The Bill was passed in 1915. You were wrong in saying that foodstuffs were put in in 1915 ?—I used the term " foodstuffs " in its more comprehensive sense.

Evidence of Mr. Alexander Patterson O'Shea, Dominion Secretary, New Zealand Farmers' Union. Mr. O'Shea : I would like to apologize for not having prepared a statement on this matter, but we were unaware that we were able to give evidence. There was no notification in the press, and my executive were in ignorance of the fact that they could make representations. There are two resolutions which I would like to read to the Committee. The first is— Resolution of the Auckland Branch of the New Zealand Farmers' Union, October, 1935.—" That this executive strongly opposes any alteration of the Commercial Trusts Act that would lead to the further exploitation of the consuming public by commercial organizations of any kind." The second resolution was one carried at the Dominion Executive meeting, and I might say my explanation at the opening would cover this. Resolution of the Dominion Executive of the New Zealand Farmers' Union passed Wednesday, 9th October 1935. —" That the Farmers' Union strongly protests against the passing of any legislation on the lines of the Commercial Trusts Amendment Act this session and/or until the community has had time to appreciate powers to be given under that amendment and the effect upon them, and that copies of the Bill be obtained and sent out to provinces, together with reports from the executive upon them." (Wellington.) There is a very strong feeling of antagonism to this measure in the Farmers' Unions—just exactly how strong we have not had the opportunity of ascertaining —because as I have said, we were unaware that we were able to do this. It is generally felt by the executive that this is aimed at the small trader, and for that reason is not in the interests of the bulk of the members of our union, and obviously so if a combination can be used to fix prices or to boycott. I should have stated that we have obtained a legal opinion on the matter, and that opinion was to the effect that the amendment would be incapable of interpretation if it had been made by a subordinate legislature—that is, if it were incorporated in a by-law. For instance, we were informed by a gentleman of some standing in the legal world that it would be held in the Supreme Court to be incapable of interpretation. It seems to us that it would open the door for combinations against the small trader, and where a man is a country shop-keeper and there was possibly a chain store held by a merchant in the district, the latter could squeeze the small trader out with consequent effect on the farmers of increasing their prices. Mr. Wilkinson.] I take it that your main object is to delay the passing of the measure until we have further considered it ?—That is so. You have taken active steps to obtain the views of your branches throughout New Zealand ?—We were unaware that this Committee was in progress. The Chairman: I understand that a notice went out. Mr. Schmitt : The Secretary of the Industries and Commerce Department sent a notice out to the Dominion Farmers' Union on sth September.—Possibly through the changeover in the administration of the union the matter was overlooked. It may have been sent out, but as far as that is concerned it would not have helped us very much because our executive meetings are some distance apart. The Chairman : The Committee sat for the first time on the 4th and sth September.

78