Evening past . MONDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1936. A UNILATERAL MIND

Evening Post, Volume CXXII, Issue 18, 19 October 1936, Page 8

Evening past . MONDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1936. A UNILATERAL MIND

The resentment shown by ' the Minister of Industries and Commerce at Lord Elibank's warning is surprising and regrettable. Hitherto Mr. Sullivan has handled the Industrial Efficiency Bill with tact and good judgment. We differ from him on the underlying principles of the measure, but we have acknowledged his evident sincerity and his desire to introduce corporate control of industry with the assent of industrialists and not in face of their opposition. To gain the approval of the manufacturers, he has .modified his Bill. He has shown equally good judgment in not attempting to drive the legislation through Parliament. It is to be regretted, then, that he should have departed so far from the correct attitude of a responsible Minister as to retaliate in unfitting terms to moderate and timely criticism..His mention of the fact that he had placed a car at Lord Elibank's disposal Avas either absurdly irrelevant or indicative of a seriously erroneous idea of i the character of British commercial leaders. It conveyed the impression that Mr. Sullivan regarded these courtesies, as the price of a distinguished guest's silence, if not of his favour. ' ' ; .'V ■'• The breach of good manners is the more deplorable because Government spokesmen, including the Prime Minister himself, tacitly invited the memjbers of the Empire : Chambers of Commerce to speak frankly. Mr. Savage in his first address to the Congress declared that Britain must invest her surplus capital within the Empire. Lord Elibank's speech was a warning against the probable effect of the Government's legislation on the investment of British capital in New Zealand. Mr. Sullivan, too, 'in referring to, opposition to the Industrial Efficiency Bill stated that it came from bodies composed largely of representatives of overseas companies. Surely, after this reference, it was reasonable that an influential) representative of overseas interests should state an opinion of the. Bill. Labour members, however, are often intolerant of views which do: not agree with their own. In theory they stand for free speech, «but the guest who puts this theory into practice is told that he is interfering in our j internal affairs, that he received the utmost hospitality and courtSsy, that "he's supposed to talk sense," and that he should have expressed his views to the Government privately. Yet we remember that members of the Labour Government and Labour representatives at Geneva have been quite outspoken on' British policy affecting both the League of ( Nations and issues' before the International Labour Office.

One has not to go far back in examination of Labour speeches to discover how outspoken Labour critics could be of the people who had invested money in New Zealand. The impression was given that those who had lent or invested in New Zealand were extortionate usurers deserving of no consideration. Yet now when an influential visitor ventures to point out that this lending or investment niay be adversely affected his courteous warning is resented. The Government^ however, will be making a grave mistake-if it regards the warning as unworthy-of attention. Mr. Sullivan may .be completely satisfied that capital is not leaving the country,' but can he say what will be the effect of recent policy measures? Taxation on companies will be oppressively heavy under the new scale; credit issues from.the Reserve Bank cannot fail to limit the field and lessen the return from private investment; the Government's industrial legislation adds materially to direct' and overhead costs; and now there will be the uncertainty imported into enterprise by the Industrial Efficiency Bill.

The amendments proposed by the Minister do not remove the features of the Industrial Efficiency Bill which must tend to make overseas investors shy of venturing their capital in the development of New Zealand industry. The Prime Minister said that New Zealand would be able to deal more effectively with kinsmen overseas because industries would be selected for development. But there will be no certainty in the selection. Any industry at any time may be made the subject of a rationalisation plan. Units in that industry will then be subject to the rule of the majority. The Minister's powers are not quite so extensive as in the^ original Bill, but the Minister and the Bureau of Industries will have quite sufficient authority to dictate to the individual manufacturer. Overseas capital will not; be made available under such conditions. The Minister may think this does not matter, but the Prime Minister cannot be of that opinion or he would not have emphasised the importance of intra-Empire investment. That is important. We cannot have everything our own way. We are hopeful that Mr. Nash will make an agreement with Great Britain to take more of our produce and so to arrange marketing that we shall receive a better return. Then we must be prepared to accept something from Britain —either manufactures, people, or capital. If we refuse to receive 'people and introduce conditions which discourage the reception of gotrtfe-^jr^capitaL'^ev^js'imakkig the

approach to bilateral agreements with a unilateral' mind. Yet when a visitor of great experience and wide knowledge with a sincere wish to advance trade points out the possible errors of the Government's policy his helpful advice is resented. This, however, the Government should remember: men of Lord Elibank's calibre do not speak without being sure of their ground. If the advice is not accepted the warning should be heeded.