Govt stops detailed debate on new bill

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33963, 2 October 1975, Page 16

Govt stops detailed debate on new bill

New Zealand Press Association*

WELLINGTON, October 1.

Approval by Parliament of the Commerce Bill would cause many New Zealanders to lose their jobs next year, the Leader of the Opposition ( Mr Muldoon i said in Parliament tonight during the debate on the controversial legislation.

Speaking during the committee stage of the bill. Mr Muldoon said that it would put trade and industry in a straitjacket. force some companies out of business, and replace competition with regulation. It would inhibit the vitality' of the private buiness sector. It was wrritten as if the average businessman was a rogue, and the consumer a victim. Mr Muldoon was in the: forefront of the Opposition's continuing attack on the measure as Parliament settled down for what was expected to be its second post-midnight sitting in successive davs this week, M.P.’s debated for two hours on whether the 133clause bill should be considered clause by clause or be divided into five parts to speed up the debate. Mr Muldoon said that the Government’s move to put the bill through in five parts set a precedent that could be applied to any bill of any substantial length, and any complexity. “Taken to its logical conclusion. it will represent a significant damaging of Parliamentary democracy in New Zealand.” he said. Mr Muldoon said that the Government risked losing the support of the Opposition by infringing the rights of theminority party

Mr freer said he was seeking to ensure reasonable progress on the Government’s legislative programme, and to j avoid hours of innumerable divisions. The Opposition had vowed to debate each of the bill’s 133 clauses, and the Opposi-i tion’s spokesman on trade and industry, Mr L. R. Adams-Schneider (Nat., Waikato), said about 50 Opposi- 1 tion amendments would be proposed. He said it would be difficult to get adequate debate on a part by part debate, and the Opposition wanted to examine the bill thoroughly. DIVISION HELD The Opposition called a division on the question, losing it by 24 votes to 38.

Mr Muldoon said the bill puts into legislation the personal philosophy of the Minister of Trade and Industry |(Mr Freer). He criticised the Govern[ment’s move to have the bill debated in each of five parts, (rather than clause by clause. “We are debating under conditions thrust on to us by | the jackboots of the Labour Party,” he said. Mr Adams-Schneider, said the bill would serve only to impede the development of commerce at a time the country’s economy needed a boost. He predicted that it would be rushed into law just before the General Election so that the people would not have time to see the flaws in its operation.

I Mr Adams-Schneider cri[ticised the Government for inot allowing an extension to [the broadcasting hours during the debate on the bill. PARTY’S VIEW Mr Adams-Schneider said Ithe National Party was not; ■just on the side of big busi-’ ness as the Government had alleged, but was concerned 'with the betterment of consumers, and business, alike. Both the Maximum Retail Price scheme, and the Commerce Bill were nothing more than “political gimmicks.” The bill had unset the Manufacturers Federal’in over the provisions on monopolies, mergers and takeovers. and had upset traders generally over the wide powers given to the Minister. Mr B. P. MacDonell (Lab.. Dunedin), the Parliamentary L'nder-Secretarv for Trade and Industry, said that the bill was supported by the majority of “fair traders” and consumers. Sir John Marshall (Nat.,. Karori) said that the measure should be called the “commerce disruption bill.” The bill would disrupt the conditions needed if commerce was to prosper. No-one could say commerce was prospering at the present time, and a quick glance at the financial, and business, columns of the ■ newspapers would confirm [this. Parliament looked set to sit (through to breakfast as [ M.P.’s continued their debate on the committee stages late i tonight