REGULATION OF INDUSTRY

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21906, 6 October 1936, Page 10

REGULATION OF INDUSTRY

Postponement of Bill ' Urged

FURTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR CONSIDERATION

f-lIE PRESS Special Service.]

DUNEDIN, October 5

A meeting of the Dunedin Chamber of Commerce, held to-day to consider the Industrial Efficiency Bill, passed the following resolutions; — “This Chamber, representative of all classes of the commercial community, desires to affirm the following objections of the Industrial Efficiency Bill now before Parliament:

(1) That, as this bill deeply concerns every possible type of business and profession, and not merely manufacturers, further opportunity should be given to all those interested to consider its provisions and implications, and to make representations to the Government. (2) That the bill as drafted does not provide any adequate safeguard at all for the interests of those concerned. (3) That the powers conferred by the bill upon the person for the time being occupying the position of Minister for Industries and Commerce are too extensive and should be modified: and, in particular, that a right of appeal from Ministerial decisions to an independent tribunal should be provided. “For • these general reasons, we strongly urge upon the Government the desirability of postponing consideration of the bill at least till next session,”

STRONG OPPOSITION

ALARM EXPRESSED AT BILL’S PROPOSALS

{PRESS ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.)

AUCKLAND, October 5

Strong opposition to the provisions of the Industrial Efficiency Bill was voiced at a special general meeting of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce this morning, nearly 100 members attending. A resolution moved by Mr F. G. Baskett was carried, though there were a number of dissentients.

The resolution expressed alarm, at “the far-reaching proposals contained in the bill, involving bureaucratic control of all industrial and commercial activity in the Dominion, complete subjugation of all private enterprise, without provision for compensation, apd the unlimited powers granted to the Minister in taking away the right of appeal to the courts,” and urging on the Government “the desirability of modifying the bill, or, failing that, postponing further action until its far-reaching implications are understood by the public.”