STANDARDS FOR INDUSTRY

Press, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23444, 26 September 1941, Page 8

STANDARDS FOR INDUSTRY

Bill Passed By The House

OPPOSITION’S REQUESTS NOT SUCCESSFUL (P R ) WELLINGTON. Sept. 25. Opposition efforts in the House of Representatives to-day to secure amendments to the clauses providing for ministerial appointments to the council and the compulsion of standards in the Standards Bill were unsuccessful. Both clauses were retained and the bill was read a third time and passed without amendment. The remaining clauses were passed by the committee without discussion, and the bill was reported to the House at 9.50 o’clock. . , , . . The Minister said he wished to place on record that he would give to the bodies usually represented on the Standards Council the opportunity of nominating representatives to the council. The Minister had full right to determine whether he would accept nominations, but unless there was some real justification for their rejection, they would be accepted in the normal course of events. Mr Poison said this should be embodied in the bill, instead of being merely a statement embalmed in HanExpressing approval of standards generally, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr S. G. Holland) said that it was necessary to avoid going too far and too fast. Most countries had found that the greatest benefit had come from the development of standards on voluntary lines. He praised the objective of the Government, but said that the bill should not have been, introduced during war time, when goods were in short supply and people were glad to get any at all. He criticised the bill on two grounds: tha. it created still another Ministerial dictatorship, and that it introduced quite unnecessary compulsion. Discussing the first ground, Mr Holland said that the Standards Council was to be 'appointed by the Minister, thaT me council could appoint committees only with the prior approval of the Minister, that the Minister had power to declare any sp2cification a standard specification without ne-es-sarily observing the recommendation of the council, that the Minister’s decision was final in appeals against the revocation of licences to use standard marks, and that “to secure efficient or economic production or distribution or otherwise, in the public interest," the Minister could refuse to allow the sale or distribution of commodities. No »nie would deny that costs had increased. When the manufacturer found that that had happened, he had to reduce the quality or increase the price. "Compulsory Application" Mr W. A. Bodkin (Opposition, Central Otago) suggested that trade and industry should have a majority on the proposed standards council, and such representatives should be elected by the organisations concerned. No justification could be advanced for the Minister appointing nominees at his will. The representative of the British Standards Institution who visited New Zealand some time ago had recommended the voluntary principle, but apparently the Government wished to be consistent with its other legislation, including the Industrial Efficiency Act, and make the application of standards compulsory. Mr W. T. Anderton (Government, Eden) said the object of the bill was not merely to protect the consumer, hut to co-ordinate industry so that the lull value of scientific progress and the practice of standardisation should be made available to the community as a whole. Capital invested in industry would also be protected. He could visualise the time when the profits of industry would also be standardised. Government members; Hear, hear. The Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes (Opposition, Hurunui) said the standards council should be given more power than the. bill proposed. It appeared that the council could either be used with value to the country or its recommendations ignored. Minister’s Reply Replying to the debate, the Minister for Industries and Commerce (the Hon. D. G. Sullivan) said he felt that the Opposition had to some extent essentially misunderstood what the word “standard" really, meant, and what ,was the object of standards, as defined in the bill. When they talked about standards, what was really meant was a standard of service and performance and of suitability of a job to be done. It did not apply so much to the external character of any article manufactured as to the essence of the job, and. if he could eliminate the idea that standards meant sameness in anything, he would have accomplished something. Referring to the question of compulsion, Mr Sullivan said' that in other countries acts gave powers to ministers to make compulsory standards. The Government was not breaking new ground, as had been suggested by the Opposition, by giving the right of appeal to the Minister against any revoking of a licence. “Standards are required in war time to a much greater extent than in peace time, and this fact had been recognised by the British Government and the British Standards Institute," the Minister said. “Some manufacturers do not play the game,. but I think it is unfair on the part of the Opposition when Government members point out deficiencies in workmanship to try to make out that they are condemning the manufacturers as a whole. There are manufacturers in some trades today who will be very glad to have compulsory standards for eliminating the shoddy work that is sometimes sent out by their unfair competitors. "Narrower Fields” “Due to a shortage of manpower and the strain on supplies, it will be necessary to concentrate our manpower, machinery, and national energy into narrower fields,” said the Minister, when replying to criticism of clause 11. To eliminate frills on designs, compulsory power was needed. It was not taken for the purpose of widespread standardisation., A reasonable application of the principle would be made. The committee divided on the clause, which was retained by 32 votes to 17. In committee, Opposition members opened their attack on clause 3 of the bill, which provides that the members of the Standards Council shall be appointed by the Minister, who may at any time remove them from office. Speakers appealed to the Minister to alter the clause to provide for the nomination of council members by interested parties, the Minister, however, retaining the right of final decision. The Minister declined to accept the suggestion, although he said that it was his intention to administer the clause as the Opposition suggested and to follow the recommendations of interested parties wherever possible. A division was called for on the clause which was retained by 34 votes to 16.