WHY LORD EUBANK SPOKE OUT

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 23, 22 October 1936, Page 10

WHY LORD EUBANK SPOKE OUT

Criticism of Efficiency Bill

FOLLOWED CONFERENCE WITH MR. NASH

The fact that a discussion took place on October 6 between Viscount Elibank and the Minister of Finance, Hon. W. Nash, on the subject of the Industrial Efficiency Bill was disclosed yesterday when Viscount Elibank made available for publication the text of a letter he had addressed to the Prime Minister, Rt. Hon. M. J. Savage. This letter, dispatched from Christchurch and dated October 19. was as follows:— “Dear Prime Minister, —

“In the light of certain criticisms in the House of Representatives of my action in referring to the Industrial Efficiency Bill during the course of a speech 1 made at a ..public dinner given by the Dunedin Chamber of Commerce on October 15, I feel it necessary to bifing certain matters to your attention.

“In the first instance, may I say, as I stated in that speech, that I was speaking as an individual and as one who is directly associated with two important companies of British origin doing large business in New Zealand.

“Very shortly after my arrival in New Zealand the contents of that Bill were brought to my notice. After due consideration I arranged to see Mr. Nash, your Minister of Finance, on the evening of October 6. the day before I left Wellington for the South Island. “Mr. Nash, who was on the eve of departure for England, very kindly received me. and I spent a considerable time with him, placing before him the facts which I subsequently outlined in my speech at Dunedin. I wound up by appealing through him to the Government to delay this legislation until he had had an opportunity of discussing it in London with those who were interested. I parted with him under the impression that this would probably be arranged. “As I proceeded south I observed from the newspapers that there was no alteration in the Government policy of pressing on with the Bill. Furthermore, on October 13, a speech was made by the Minister of Industries and Commerce, in which he was reported to have stated in the House of Representatives that ‘So far as he could see, the only relative bodies from which protests had been received were composed largely of representatives of overseas companies.’ These protests he was apparently ignoring, although it is their capital which has largely helped to develop New Zealand. “In a later part of the same speech, Mr. Sullivan was reported to have said that: ‘The principles of the Bill were being operated in other countries, particularly Britain, though he admitted that there they dealt with specific industries.’ From this it would be inferred that in Britain we have similar comprehensive legislation, which is not the case. “In the circumstances. I felt that I could not possibly let these two statements go without a reply, and that as they were made publicly they required a public reply. Hence my speech, in which 1 reiterated, tts carefijjly and as courteously as I could, the facts which I had already laid before the Minister of Finance, and which, moreover, contained my original appeal to the Government for delay of this legislation. “I hope, in view of the above, that you will be able to take an early opportunity to make my position clear to the House of Representatives, and to inform them that they are under a misapprehension if any of them believe that I have been guilty of an act of discourtesy to your Government, such as was suggested. “Further. I hope this letter will remove any misunderstandings, but in view of the publicity there lias been over this matter, I think it right to send it to the Press, and this I propose to do, after my arrival in Wellington to-morrow,

“Believe me, yours sincerely, “(Signed: EUBANK.”