PLANNED INDUSTRY

Evening Post, Volume CXXII, Issue 99, 23 October 1936, Page 10

PLANNED INDUSTRY

EFFICIENCY BILL

DEBATE IN COUNCIL

GOVERNMENT'S AIMS

The Industrial Efflcency ■ Bill was ' considered by the Legislative Council j today. Moving the second reading, the ' Leader of the Council (the Hon. M. ', Fagan) said that no objections to the Bill had been received from the manu- ■ facturers, and the only •isolated pro- . tests had come from chambers of com- , merce. Every possible evil that the ; Bill contained had been stressed, and ; every possible good it contained had i • been misconstrued. It was difficult to j ; reconcile the harsh criticism that had ■ been made, against the measure with its provisions, which must be regarded as beneficial to the country.. The whole object of the ' Bill was ' that' there should be ho interference with existing industry, except at the request of a majority of the persons engaged in,it. Compared with similar legislation in other parts of the world, the Bill was by far the best-designed measure, said Mr. There was nothing further from the mind of the Government than harrassing industry. The chief aim was for the State and indus-try-to form a partnership—not in the sense of ownership—but to eliminate waste and overlap and to obtain the necessary co-ordination so essential. if industy were to function as it should. There would be no compulsion, and the method of the Bureau of Industry would be that, of gradualism... REASON FOR MODIFICATION. The Hon. R. Masters said that though the manufacturers as an' organisation were behind the Bill, some big individual manufacturers were opposed to it. As a result.of opposition outside the House the Bill was modified. Some of the clauses in the Bill were desirable, and others were objectionable. He doubted whether the principle in the Bill was operative in any- other country. Any industry- was :more competent to submit a plan than any body of civil servants was. One of the principles guiding the activities -of '■ the Bureau should be that, any action should be in the national interests. Other matters which should /weigh with the Bureau; should ;be lowered production and distribution costs. The Bureau should also see that there was no financial injury to any undertaking, and that terms and schemes should be fair and equitable. In. cases ' where compensation was paid, probably involving ' thousands of pounds, he thought that the basis of the compensation should be clearly; set out, and the computation ,of . cOiripensation should not, be done by regulation. Industries had failed through, lacfc^ of scientific knowledge, and the 'Bill would provide for greater scientific research, said Mr. Masters. ; One could understand the support given by the manufacturers, as the Bill" would tend to create monopolies. What-was to be the" attitude' of Government' trading departments • under the Bill? Would the Railway Department be put out of action' as a trading concern if it was found to ,be inefficient by the Bureau? Mr. Pagan: Nonsense. '■ . -' • ? ■ Mr. Masters said.it would be unusual for. existing industries not to be given a licence. He hoped- the Bill would prove useful .to:the country. ' ■ The Hon. T. Bloodworth generally supported the Bill. • •■■■■••' GOVERNMENT FACTORIES. The Hon. W. W. Snodgrass said that he regretted that the Government, had commenced to build sash and door factories, before. the passing of" the Bill. The new factories Would put other factories out of action. In. view of .the fact that the Government ' factories would be competing; on an unfair basis with other -factories, would,, not' the Bureau be justified in saying that,.the Government factories should not start? The Hon. R. McCallum said that the Bill would not be the last word in this class of legislation. If it were administered properly, the Bill would ■v be of benefit to New Zealand. - . The Hon. D. Buddo supported - the Bill. - .'■■.■'■•■ (Proceeding;)