The Press SATURDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1936. The Industrial Efficiency Bill

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21904, 3 October 1936, Page 14

The Press SATURDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1936. The Industrial Efficiency Bill

From the New Zealand Manufacturers’ Federation, and from several of the provincial manufacturers’ associations have come enthusiastic endorsements of the Government’s Industrial Efficiency Bill, To the casual reader of the bill this will seem a little surprising, since at almost every important point the measure is alarmingly vagus. Even allowing for the fact that the- manufacturers themselves are the originators of the scheme underlying the bill, they might be expected to be less willing to concede such wide and ill-defined powers to the State. The explanation is,. probably, that the bill is the product of much negotiation between the Minister and the manufacturers’ representatives and that the manufacturers, knowing more about the Minister’s intentions than the general public, are not alarmed by possibilities. In this they, may be wise. Mr Sullivan’s explanatory speech on the bill showed clearly that he does hot intend to rush impetuously into grandiose “ planning ” projects. For the present at any rate he will be content to assist reorganisation in certain industries which have already appealed for such assistance. It is also reassuring to find that the Minister is fully alive to the danger that licensing of industries, unwisely applied, may penalise consumers and discotuv age progress and efficiency. Probably it is assurances such as these, and tile Minister’s obvious good sense and moderation, which,, rather than the actual contents of the bill, have won the support of the manufacturers. But the manufacturers will do well to remember that Ministers are much less enduring than statutes and that, although Mr Sullivan’s policy may bo an excellent one, his bill is a bad bill. It would be a good deal clearer, and scarcely less 'objectionable if it were condensed into one clause, empowering the Minister to do what he thinks fit to improve the organisation of industry. If there is to be a bureau of industry, its constitution and its powers should be defined with reasonable precision. For the bureau is not solely an advisory body; it has the power, in certain circumstances, to refuse a man permission to ppen a factory and perhaps even to close down a factory already in operation. While it may be desirable that such powers should exist—and manufacturers’ organisations seem to think it is desirable—it is equally desirable that the elementary rights of the citizen should be protected. It is not clear from the bill that such protection is being provided; and the Minister’s explanation of the licensing clauses is the least satisfactory part of his speech. It must he hoped that Parliament, in dealing with this bill, will press for a much greater definiteness of statement.