Less Partisanship At Industrial Conference

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29232, 16 June 1960, Page 14

Less Partisanship At Industrial Conference

(From Our Own Reporter) WELLINGTON, June 15. The farm-versus-factory tone of yesterday’s debates was less in evidence at today’s sessions of the industrial development conference. Delegates from the “farm bloc” and from manufacturing organisations were less provocative after the acting-chairman of one committee, Mr W. G. V. Fernie, appealed to them co refrain from “destructive criticism and concentrate on a considered analysis of the present situation.”

After today’s less partisan debate it now appears less likely that contentious issues will be put to the vote.

When the rapporteurs of the three committees produce their summaries of proceedings, each committee will discuss them. Yesterday it appeared as if several delegates intended to ask one committee to approve resolutions certain to be opposed. Such, resolutions may be withdrawn.

A notable attempt to find common ground was a speech by Dr. H. B. Low (Massey Agricultural College), who claimed that a very small proportion of the work force depended on protection by way of tariff or import controls.

“There is a false division of opinion among delegates on this issue of protection," he said. More than 50 per cent, of the labour force was employed in servicing industries, which were completely immune from overseas competition, he said. Those engaged in the processing of primary produce were also safeguarded in the same way.

“Three-quarters of the manufacturing industry is certain to grow because of the local demand, and that leaves only one-quarter of manufacturing which is competing with imported products. Some of these industries are competitive, efficient units. That leaves a very small residual.” It was acknowledged that some degree of protection was necessary for industry for strategic and other reasons. The questions were how much protection and for which industries, Dr. Low continued. He believed a very modest level of protection would be sufficient, and claimed that the best way to select industries which should be protected would be to let market forces impose a uniform tariff.

Industries which grew up and flourished under this modest level of protection would then be those which made the best use of the country’s limited resources of land, labour and capital. Mr J. R. Maddren (Canterbury Manufacturers’ Association) claimed that the problem of finding employment for the growing numbers to leave school in the next few- years should not be underestimated. "The current rate of development is not sufficient,” he said. The Government Statistician (Mr J. V. T. Baker) bad claimed that the building and other industries would absorb much of the additional labour. “But expansion of the building industry depends on the development of farming and manufacturing,” Mr Maddren said. The Manufacturers’ Federation

continually received requests from smaller centres for advice on the promotion of secondary industry in their areas, said Mr Maddren. This proved that opportunities for employment in manufacturing were not sufficient now, let alone in the future.