STATE AND INDUSTRY

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 255, 24 July 1937, Page 13

STATE AND INDUSTRY

Not Bound by Efficiency Act CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE CRITICAL “Increased prominence which is being given to the activities of the Bureau of Industry under the Industrial Efficiency Act gives rise to questions of considerable public importance in relation to the application of the Act to industry,” say the Associated Chambers of Commerce of New Zealand in a statement issued yesterday.

“For instance, it is a serious omission that there is nothing in the Act which provides that it shall bind the Crown. In other words, none of the manufacturing activities in which the State engages now or at any future time may be brought under the plans which may at any time be applied to the private units in particular industries. Consequently, those activities engaged in by the State, such as the manufacture of goods by the railways workshops in competition with private enterprise; coal-mining, timber-mining, the operation of quarries, etc., will not come under the review of the Bureau of Industry as the firms with which those activities compete will do. “It is not open to the bureau to investigate or to show whether the State is efficient Or inefficient in its manufacturing methods. Even though private concerns may be refused licences by the bureau, and forced to close down. State ‘enterprises may not be touched. The effect willjbe to discharge these State undertakings from the charge of inefficiency, redundancy and uneconomic operation without ever bringing them to trial and hearing the evidence. ' Wider Than Manufacturing. “However, that is not all. It is not merely the State’s manufacturing enterprises' which are excluded from the scope of the Act. The interpretation in the Act of the word ‘industry’ is given to include ‘any trade, occupation, business, manufacture, works or. any service of any kind whatsoever.’ There could be nothing more comprehensive than this. The bureau could decide to regulate and license banking, money-lending, legal work and trusteeship. insurance, printing, and so on. Despite the fact that the State engages in all these activities, as well as many others—listed in a recent statement by the Associated Chambers —the Bureau of Industry has no power to deal with any of them, but must confine itself to the private concerns which are engaged in such activities. How can such a lop-sided position. bring about just, equitable and comprehensive decisions by the bureau, and achieve the stated object of the Act, which is, inter alia, to ‘so regulate the general organisation, development and operation of industries that a greater measure of industrial efficiency will be secured?’ “If there is going to be any regulation or wiping out of units in industry, or in other gainful occupations under the powers provided by the Act, then it is the height of injustice for State undertakings, which enjoy no inherent merit whatever over private enterprise, to be excluded and rendered immune from such regulation and elimination. Already private business concerns are at a serious disadvantage because of the same rent, rates, taxes and other charges and conditions which they have to meet not being required of State trading undertakings which are competitive with them. These State enterprises will be doubly strengthened if, continuing to enjoy their special and unfair taxation privileges, they are able to operate at will and whim in a field in which conqietition has been deliberately weakened and reduced by application of the Act’s restrictive powers to the competing private busin&ssetj. New State Enterprises?. “Thirdly, when any ‘industry’ (in the wide sense given in the Act) has been thoroughly tied down with regulations and restrictions, and perhaps when some of the units have been refused licences to continue in operation, there is nothing to prevent the State from (1) expanding its own activities in that industry; and (2) instituting new enterprises. Indeed, such a development was frankly foreshadowed by the Leader of the Legislative Council (Hon. M. Fagan) in the Council last year when the .Industrial Efficiency Bill was under criticism. I

“According to Hansard, the Minister said: ‘There is nothing in the Bill to Land the Crown. I would say that the question of competition from State works in any given direction will eventually have to come under review, but I would like to be quite frank and state that while there will perhaps be need of co-ordination between certain State enterprises and private enterprise in any line of manufacture, and while I say it may be necessary from time to time to co-operate as far as I>ossible as between State and private enterprise in the same category, the day may come when it will be necessary for the State to strike out on its own in any enterprise in the public interest, arid, at that point, whether it pays duty, sales tax, exchange and all the other taxes mentioned, that also affects the policy of the Government, and can well be left until the time arrives for that aspect of the matter to be dealt with.’ “The Government has so far exhibited no inclination or intention to impose proper taxation and other charges and conditions on its existing trading undertakings, so that traders and the taxpaying community, who are already called on to bear more than their fair share of taxation, will want to know earlier than on some vague future date the basis of taxation and conditions for any new State trading undertakings which may be launched. “Then again, the statement by the Leader of the Legislative Council that State competition will eventually have to come under review, is no guarantee, under the Act as at present drawn, that it will. There should be no doubt whatever concerning the future status of the .State under an Act which involves bureaucratic control of all industrial and commercial activity in the Dominion, and complete subjugation of all private enterprise."