BILL- ATTACKED BY MR COATES

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21907, 7 October 1936, Page 10

BILL- ATTACKED BY MR COATES

POWERS OF BUREAU OF INDUSTRY

“BACK-DOOR METHOD OP GAINING CONTROL”

[Prom Our Parliamentary Reporter.!

WELLINGTON, October 6,

What was perhaps the strongest criticism which the Government has heard of its Industrial Efficiency BUI came from the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates (Nat., Kaipara), in the House of Representatives to-day. Speaking in the resumed second-reading debate, Mir Coates voiced a protest against what he described as a back-door method of getting control of industry, and attacked the principle of wholesale Government interference in industry. He claimed that there was no need for Such a sweeping measure at all. Nobody, said Mr Coates, knew how far the bill might go, nor had anyone any idea how it was going to operate. It provided for a regimentation of industry, and that would not work. The bill would mean increased costs and inefficiency, and the public would not be served as Well as it was being served at present. The manufacturers, said Mr Coates, were entitled to ask for what they •Wanted; but at the same time one was justified in enquiring if they w.ere satisfied with the bill.

The Minister (the Hon. D. G. Sullivan); Licensing has their concurrence, co-ordination has their concurrence, and the Bureau of Industry has their concurrence; but they want to have a larger say in whether any plan should or should not be adopted. Mr Coates said he had been informed that the Minister had told the manufacturers that if they did not agree with the proposals in the bill he would jSccialito every industry in the country. The Minister: I hope the honourable gentleman will accept my word when I say that I said nothing of the kind. What I did say was -that if they did not want the bill that was all right. Statement Accepted Mr Coates said he accepted the Minister’s statement. The last Government had taken the definite view that the onus was on the manufacturers to improve their own industries. However there had apparently been a good deal of dissension, and some manufacturers’ organisations had asked for powers of compulsion. The Government of that day had not been prepared to go that distance; but it had Indicated that If specific cases of waste or incompetence were brought to its notice it would be prepared to deal with the matter by introducing legislation bearing on the individual industry concerned. That Was a reasonable and logical approach to the whole position of efficiency in industry.

The establishment of the so-called bureau, Mr Coates said, meant the operation of a tariff board. The policy of the Government, which the industry had to stand, meant a definite rise in prices.

The Minister for Internal Affairs (the Hon. W. E. Parry): A slight rise, perhaps.

Mr Coates: A big rise, I think; but even if it is a slight rise, slow strangulation can be just as effective sa sudden decapitation. With both costs and prices rising, Mr Coates said, tariff considerations had to enter into the situation. Manufacturers operating under the Oovernfnent’s labour legislation would be asked to compete with imports from countries where the hours of work were 44 to 48 a week, where there were lower wages bills, and where, in many cases, more effleieht machinery wr, available. It was obvious that tariffs would have to be brought into the picture.

Mr Sullivan: We know how each industry in the country will be affected by this legislation, and only a handful will be seriously affected. Mr Coates; How can the Government tell until the legislation is in operation?

Mr H. M. Christie (Govt., Waipawa): The manufacturers will have the benefit of increased turnover. Mr Coates: Increased turnover is more than overtaken by increased costs. Higher Tariffs or Embargo The whole trend of affairs, Mr Coates said, meant either a rise In tariffs or an embargo on certain classes of imports. If those alternatives were ignored the Prime Minister might find himself in the position of having to raise the rate of exchange still further. Increased costs would inevitably bring the local manufacturer into keener competition with the importer. “I do not like this back-dbor method of getting control of industry. The bureau may do this and the bureau may do that; but it is all to one end. We want a definite statement of Government policy concerning the use of this legislation; but in the final analysis there Is no need for the bill at all. Special sets of circumstances should be dealt with Individually in a careful and considered way,” Mr Coates concluded.

BILL’S PROPOSALS SUPPORTED

ATTITUDE OF WELLINGTON MANUFACTURERS

[THE PRESS Special Service.]

WELLINGTON. October 6,

Commenting on several requests from the Chambers of Commerce that the Industrial Efficiency Bill should be held over, Mr lan Matheson, president of the Wellington Manufacturers’ Association, said to-day that this attitude did hot surprise him as much as might be expected. ‘Tor at least two years manufacturers .have been applying themselves to find a solution of some of the difficulties with which they are faced,” he shid. “I view the bill as a genuine, honest attempt to provide the means of dealing with many of those difficulties such as the overlapping of plant services and competition from small manufacturing units where the conditions of employment are not fully controlled. It must be recognised that to deal with these and other problems, so as to achieve a greater measure of efficiency in industry, further organisation is necessary. “The Industrial Efficiency Bill is a further step in the organisation of our society and should be regarded as such. It seems to be purely a matter of history that every attempt at further organisation throughout the ages has been attacked by certain elements of the public and supported by others. Without for one instant suggesting that every attempt at further organisation has been along the line of progress. It is nevertheless 1 significant that the same element in society usually aligns itself against progressive organisation. , Having studied the points dealt with m the bill for, at. least two years. Wellington manufacturers are of opinion that this further step in the organisation of society is a progressive one. For this reason the policy in the bill has their .support, although there are undoubtedly one or two points which require adjustment so as to provide legal safeguards. These could quite egsuy be provided without in any way interfering -with, the general policy’ set out In the bIU.

lam one of those who believe li Would be just as much a tragedy to stop progressive organisation at this stage of civilisation as it would have been to have stopped it 200 years ago or at any other stage. In fact, it is a common thought to view some peoples of the world as being 200 or 300 years bahind the times in the organisation of their society*’*