VAN OPPOSITION AMENDMENT

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21908, 8 October 1936, Page 12

VAN OPPOSITION AMENDMENT

RECONSTRUCTION OF MEASURE URGED

INDUSTRIAL EFFICIENCY BILL

BECOND-READING DEBATE NOT

YET FINISHED

[From Our Parliamentary Reporter.!

WELLINGTON, October 7,

Just as it appeared that the second read-ng debate on the Industrial Efficiency Bill would collapse, in the House of Representatives this evening, the leader of the Opposition (the Kt. Hon. G, W. Forbes) unexpectedly moved an amendment which gave the Opposition the chance to reopen the whole debate. Mr Forbes moved that the bill should be referred back to the Government for reconstruction, claiming that the country was not suffic.ently acquainted with its full implications, and that more time was needed for consideration of the measure. His action came as a climax to a sustained protest against the measure from the Opposition benches.

Mr Forbes said he was convinced that the country did not fully understand the proposals embodied in the Pleasure.’ From a political viewpoint alone, the Minister would be wise to allow more time for consideration of the principles propounded in the bill. It might be true that manufacturers’ associations had been consulted; but he felt sure from conversations he had had with various industrialists that individual manufacturers had not been in a position to study the legislation.

Mr Forbes said it was clear that the objective of the Government was the conversion of New Zealand as rapidly as possible into a socialist state, nnd the bill before the House was designed to carry that policy a step further.

A Government member: Cheer up. Mr Forbes: Oh, I am not downhearted, because t know that the people of New Zealand will not stand for it

• Mr Forbes condemned the Minister’s proposal that the Bureau of Industries should comprise civil servants with a majority voice. They were conservative in their outlook, and the bill conferred powers on them that were too sweeping. He said that if the Minister wished to make the bill workable he should set out to secure the co-operation and advice of men qualified to judge an industry or prospective industry by their actual experience of its ramifications. The proposed personnel of the bureau was the greatest weakness ox the bill. The industries of the Dominion were built through the courage and foresight of private enterprise, and • the efiect of the legislation would be just the opposite to what the Minister intended. So far from encouraging new industries and stimulating those already in existence, the bill would discourage the investment of overseas capital in industrial enterprise in New Zealand, end would tend to create monopolies in commercial undertakings now in operation. The efiect on the unemployment situation would be the reverse of what the Minister expected. The array of conditions on which new industry must satisfy the bureau represented the mest extraordinary collection of hurdles that could have been erected against an enterprise, Mr Forbes said. On the other hand, it was understandable that industries already operating desired that no outside concern should be given a chance to enter the field of production. There was no doubt .shat the Minister would have to withstand. a great deal of pressure by applicants for licenses to conduct an industry or a shop, or to sell a certain line of commodities. It was only human, on the part of manufacturers and retailers, that they should try to secure a monopoly in their respective spheres. In taking powers to grant or refuse licenses on his own initiative, the Minister was storing up trouble for himself. Mr Forbes' predicted that the legislation, if ever it reached' the Statute Book, would discourage capital from investing in New Zealand industries.

Mr Sullivan; Oh, no. Mr Forbes; I am certain of it. If the bill had been referred to a committee of the House that fact would have been pointed out to the Minister. We are asked to act on the assumption that overseas concerns proposing to start in this country could satisfy the Bureau of Industries on the multitude of conditions imposed under the legislation. Mr Forbes moved the following amendment:— “That the bill be referred back to the Government for the purpose of reconstructioxi, on the lines of dealing only with a particular industry or specified particular industries, after a majority of those controlling such an industry, or the industries concerned, have expressed their desire to come under the provisions of the bill.”

Mr Forbes said he had not moved <!ie amendment in a desire to prolong he debate, but to put on reco 1 d what the Opposition considered a wise method of dealing with the bill. “I do not recall, in my long experience in this House, an instance where a bill of such magnitude has been taken direct into the second reading stage without preliminary examination by a Committee of the House,” he said. The debate was resumed by Mr L. G. Lowry (Govt, Otaki). Referring to criticism by Mr S. G. Smith (Nat, New Plymouth) that the bill introduced the Russian philosophy of industry, he said that the expansion of industry under the Soviet regime had been remarkable, and New Zealand might be able to learn something from that philosophy. Although he was well content to live in New Zealand, he deprecated criticism of a social order that had contributed something to the progress of mankind.

The contention that the bill would prevent capital from coming into New Zealand and would also restrict immigration. was made by Mr W. P. Endean (Nat, Parnell). He said that the bill would’ have altogether too wide an effect on industry, and many people might be put out of business. It was a principle of British justice, moreover, that people whose rights were taken away should be compensated.

The Minister for Industries and Commerce (the Hon. D. G, Sullivan): I have already said that if a person is put out of business, those who benefit should compensate him. That is part of the plan. A suggestion that provision should be made In the Industrial Efficiency Bill along the lines of preventing any person connected with the Bureau of Industries from holding shares in any private company was made by Mr H-G- Dickie (Nat., Pa tea). There was a good deal of laughter I* an interjection made by Mr F, W.

Schramm (Govt., Auckland East), while Mr Dickie was speaking. “Under this bill we will never produce a Henry Ford,” Mr Dickie said. Mr Schramm: Ah, but you have a Bill Poison.

The amendment moved by Mr Forbes, designed to refer the bill back to the Government, was supported by Mr C. A. Wilkinson (Nat., Egmont), Mr W. A. Bodkin (Nat., Central Otagolr Mr W. J. Broadfoot (Nat., Waitomo), and Mr H. S. S. Kyle (Nat, Riccarton). Their arguments were along the lines of those used by other Opposition speakers during their long fight against the bill. Mr W. J. Poison (Nat., Stratford), who was the last speaker before the adjournment at 10.30, also gave his assistance to the argument for the amendment.

At the end of his speech, the Opposition asked for a division on the amendment to have the bill referred back to the Government. The amendment was lost by 42 votes to 17, and the House then rose with the secondreading debate not yet completed.