Mr Sullivan on Small Firms

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21906, 6 October 1936, Page 8

Mr Sullivan on Small Firms

The possible uses which can be made of the licensing provisions of the Industrial Efficiency Bill, in the effort to avoid or diminish any over-capitalisation which may be discovered by investigation, have not been made any more clear by the Kon. D. G, Sullivan in his statement published in “ The Press ” yesterday. It has not been sufficiently recognised that the new proposals contain powers for a more radical curtailment of laissez faire in industry than has ever been projected before in New Zealand legislation. The expressed intention of ' the bill, in such terms and phrases as co-ordin-ation, eliminating waste and inefficiency, and avoidance of over-capitalisation, has been consistently abstract. It is not expected that an account should be given of the application of new legislation in specific instances. But*where the proposals refer generally to certain conditions which it is intended to remove, and where concrete instances must immediately suggest themselves, it is preferable that at least the limits of State regulation should be plainly defined. Mr Sullivan said: “ I can conceive “ that under a co-ordinated organisation in the “ industry there would be a useful part to be played by the smaller unit. It could devote “ itself to some special phase of activity in the “ industry, which perhaps it could do effi- “ ciently.” This referred to smaller units which were “ unable to hold their own where they “ are attempting to give full service and to “handle all lines in the industry.” In this way Mr Sullivan minimised the possibility of small units ): eing affected in reducing the redundant capital of an industry. He appears to ' have assumed that the smaller units can readily be diverted from one type of manufacture to another—-that is. those smaller units which are shown to be competing with only indifferent success and which are therefore not essential in the cycle of production. But a transition from the traditional system of free enterprise to a system even of partial State regulation cannot be so easily achieved. The process is not so simple as transferring labourers from the No. 5 scheme to public works. Capital, like labom*, can become specialised. The smaller units referred to by Mr Sullivan, if they represent redundant capital, in most cases represent such capital in a fixed form—plant, factories, and other equipment. And if, as it is assumed, they are competing with little success, their resources of free capital will be limited. At present, there may be what an Auckland manufacturer called a “law of the “jungle.” But it is not unfair to suggest that the division of manufacturers’ opinion on the bill corresponds roughly to the division into those who have something to fear from its intention (stated or implied) and those who have not. The “law of the jungle” is at least a natural law, of the operations of which most people are aware. It can only be altered by a consent as universal as nature. There is no objection to, and nothing to be feared from, Mr Sullivan’s aims, as far as they are known; but there can be nothing but uneasiness at the very wide powers desired for the State, and the lack of definition of limits within whi?h these powers may be applied.

Air Pollution*

Christchurch, which suffers considerably from “fog and filthy air,” should have read with hopeful interest of the smoke abatement exhibition in London, the subject of an.official wireless message yesterday. A similar exhibition here, illustrating the harm done by smoke, especially if the lesson were enforced by estimates of the annual cost of permitting it to be done, would arouse in the city a keener sense of the need for action and show what action is possible. The Sunlight League has already done something, in propaganda and fight, against the enemy,* and it may fairly claim the leadership in a more vigorous campaign, to be opened by such an exhibition. But where the league led, the City Council would have to follow, and the co-operation of a number of other bodies and authorities would havAo be enlisted. A campaign against smoke nuisance in particular and air pollution in general is a campaign against a cause of ill-health and of material waste. It is sufficiently well established that smoke-laden air prevents, while pure air transmits, the ultra-violet rays of sunlight; and it follows that town-dwellers, deprived of a full measure of sunlight, tend to suffer from deficiency diseases. In a few words, smoke makes cripples; and the remedy is to purify the air and let the sun through. This is unquestionably the most important reason why the sky should be swept clean; but strong ones are to be found in the plain facts that smoke is a proof of fuel waste and an agent of destruction, steadily disintegrating stone and mortar, paint, clothes, furniture, etc. Sir Kingsley Wood, who said at the London exhibition that smoke cost the nation “many “ millions every year,” did not exaggerate. Nor did Lord Newton, some 10 years ago, when he said that the people of England, though priding ■ themselves on being “ the most cleanly “people personally in the civilised world,'’ nevertheless tolerated urban conditions “dir- “ tier than anything that can be shown in any “other country of Europe.” It is possible to be thankful that Christchurch stands outside the sweep of this indictment; it is wiser to admit that a deserved reproach may be found in it.