"BUREAUCRATIC"

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 236, 5 October 1936, Page 8

"BUREAUCRATIC"

INDUSTRIES BILL STRONG OPPOSITION. COMMERCE CHAMBER'S VIEWS PROTEST TO GOVERNMENT. Strong opposition to the provisions of the Industrial Efliciency Bill was voiced by most of the speakers at a special general meeting of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce which was convened to discuss the bill this morning. Nearly a hundred members attended. The following resolution, moved by Mr. F. G. Baskett, was carried, though there were a number of dissentients: — "That this largely attended meeting of members of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce, representing all branches of industry and commerce, being alarmed at the far-reaching proposals contained in the Industrial Efliciency Bill, involving bureaucratic control of all industrial and commercial activity in the Dominion, complete subjugation of all private enterprise without provision for compensation, the unlimited powers of control over industry and commerce granted to the Minister, the taking away of the right of the subject to appeal to the Courts, urges upon the Government the desirability of modifying the bill or, failing that, postponing further action thereon until its far-reaching implications are understood by the public." In the absence of the president, Mr. A. A. Ross who, with the secretary, Dr. E. P. Neale, is in Wellington, Mr. Gainor Jackson presided, while Mr. Harvey Turner acted as secretary. Apologies were received from the Mayor, Mr. Ernest Davis, and the delegates who are attending the conference in Wellington. Postponement Suggested. Mr. Jackson said" that the provisions of the Industrial Efficiency Bill recently introduced by the Government were so far-reaching* that it had been deemed advisable, when advance copies of the bill were received on Tuefday, to call members together, so that they could have an opportunity of discussing the effects on industry. The executive, said Mr. Jackson, had wired to the Associated Chambers of Commerce in Wellington, suggesting that immediate representations be made to the Government to postpone consideration of the bill, or to confine it to those who asked for it, some manufacturers having supported it. So many inquiries on the subject had been received that it had been deemed advisable to call a general meeting of members to discuss it, as only a few copies of the bill were available.

L After reading the bill, for the benefit . of those who had not had opportunity of perusing it, the chairman made a few remarks on its implications, in which he' ; said:— Socialisation Foreseen. "Under the provisions of this bill, a plan may be put before the bureau by any persons in the industry, employees as well as employers, even if the employers or owners of the industry do not approve of it. There is no right of appeal further than to the Minister of Industries and Commerce, and if the .Minister thinks the appeal is frivolous, he may order the appellant to pay the . costs of the appeal. The Minister can make an order for all firms in a particular industry to be licensed, and the penalty for not being licensed is £100. If this .bill becomes law, it will be the 'Open Sesame' to complete socialisation of industry in the Dominion, and the end of private enterprise." Control Needed. The attention of members was drawn by a speaker to the provision whereby any business could be put out of operation by the revocation of its license on six months' notice on a charge of "inefficiency." Many old-established firms who had not recently been able to afford up-to-date machinery or new firms starting on small capital, might suffer. There should at least be provision for compensation. There was no opening left for private initiative. "We already have a Board of Trade Act," remarked Mr. J. A. C. Allum, president of the Auckland Manufacturers' Association. "If you want to frighten your members any more, Mr. Chairman,, I suggest that you send downstairs and get a copy of that. And that was not passed by a Labour Government." Mr. Jackson: This is not a political body, and I cannot allow discussion of the policies of past or present Governments. "This bill is not a new thing," Mr. Allum pointed out. "In Great Britain tlio Government has had to pass legislation rationalising various industries. That is in part why the Manufacturers' Association supports this bill. Industry in New Zealand is in a chaotic condition. It needs some control, and that control will never come by the voluntary efforts of those engaged in it. It is desirable that labour should be engaged under proper conditions, but the man who employs his workers under proper conditions is at a disadvantage in competing with those who do not." The bill was not drawn up, Mr. Allum admitted, as the manufacturers would have drafted it, but in most respects it was acceptable. He did not see why the workers in an industry should not be allowed to suggest a plan for that industry. Plans had to be approved by a ' bureau before being sent on to the Minister. The bill, in his opinion, did no more than give an opportunity to industry t<v-organise- itSfelf-find^ihen-^HhnHij^

plans, giving reasonable protection to all parties, no favouring one at the expense of the others. "Two things, however, the manufacturers would like to see incorporated," stated Mr. Allum. "The first would be that no plan should be operative unless it was approved by a majority of the industry, assessed on an output basis. That would dispose of practically all the objections I have so far heard. The second would be that reasonable compensation should be allowed to any persons put out of industry by the Act." With those two clauses incorporated, the manufacturers would, said Mr. Allum, be well satisfied with the bill. The putting out of operation of inefficient firms would, he said, encourage efficient and progressive young men to enter industry. Millers' Position. A contrary view was taken by the following speaker, who said that young people with small capital would be deterred from "starting out oil their own," existing holders »>f licenses would oppose the granting of licenses to them, resulting in the creation of monopolies. "This bill is built on the assumption that all the brains of the country are in Parliament or in the public service, remarked Mr. Baskett. "We who have built up the industries of this "country have to admit now that we are not competent to run them and have to puss over their control to the Government. The bill is being hurried through. I had not had it ten minutes when I was asked to vote at a meeting of manufacturers whether I would support it or not. It is so far reaching that it should be thoroughly digested." Mr. Allum: I cannot understand why there should be any ignorance of the bill. The Press published a very fine and full report, one of the best I have ever seen. Any one who read the papers would have as good an idea of the bill as if he read the bill himself — probably better. Mr. J. C. Peacock said that as one interested in an industry—flour milling —that had already come under Government control, he would issue, a serious warning that under this legislation industry would have a hard time. The flour millers had stated their case to the Minister of Industries and Commerce and the Prime Minister, but, he stated, "things are not what they seem." Putting forward his opinion that each industry should have its own sepa'rate legislation, Mr. B. H. Kingston pointed out that the operation of the bill would be by Order-in-Council, giving no opportunity for discussion in the House. He was corrected, however, by the chairman, who.said that all regulations made by Order-in-Council had to be tabled, though not necessarily approved. "I would point out, however," stated Mr. Jackson, "that transfers of licenses have to be approved. The purchaser of a business might not be allowed to carry 1 it. on."

"That already applies to freezing works," remarked Mr. Allum. "I understand that is the same reason that shipping company shares have to be held by British subjects, so as to keep the control in British hands," said Mr. Jackson. "May not this clause in this bill he for the same reason?" Mr. Allum suggested. Disapproval or Co-operation. Mr. Harvey Turner suggested that, as the manufacturers supported the bill, the question before the meeting was whether the Chamber of Commerce would disapprove of it altogether or cooperate with the manufacturers in trying to get the amendments that they desired incorporated. "The questions really are," said Mr. Jackson, "whether we approve the substitution of State control for private enterprise, and whether we approvo of our employees being able to propose a plan which we will have to comply with." Mr. Allum said that Mr. Turner's point should be put to the meeting, and J subsequently, if the meeting generally approved the bill, the question would then arise what proposals could be put to the Government for the better workinir of it. The manufacturers felt that if the two amendments they proposed were accepted, they would have little to fear, and the bill would have a beneficial effect. The motion was then put.