AID FOR COMPANY

Evening Post, Volume CXXV, Issue 58, 10 March 1938, Page 22

AID FOR COMPANY

GOVERNMENT'S PART

The Attorney-General (the Hon. G; R. Mason) said that Mr. Bodkin was ti-ving to use against the Government the efforts it had made to help the Onokaka company, but he must know what the so-called partnership was. It had been stated frequently during Ihe debate that the Government had put a great deal of money

into the concern. Part of the ataount given by the Government was by way of subsidy. As to the remainder the company had become indebted to the Government for coal supplies and other items. It appealed to the Government for help and, as there was a chance of- many men being thrown out ot work, the Government made substantial advances. Thus the Government became a most unwilling creditor. In all probability it had a1 prior right over the debenture holders, but it was arranged that ,they should rank equally. Only to 'that extent could ; it be said that the Government had entered into any sort of partnership.

If the Government was to stand by | and give private enterprise another chance after all the years of repeated failure, then it was quite conceivable that one way to approach the problem would be to apply to the Court and ask that the company be fined for its failure to perform its duty in developing the industry, said the Minister.: That would be adding insult to injury for the shareholders.

■He was not/ one of those who thought that people who pujt money into such an enterprise were moved solely by sordid motives. He had not the least doubt that those who put their money into it felt some satisfaction from thinking; that they were helping in the development of an industry that would be of benefit to New Zealand. He believed that the original, shareholders were entitled to all respect, and he would say nothing against the debenture holders either, who no doubt had lent their money with the same motive.

STATE SUBSIDIES.

Mr, Mason said it was not altogether correct to assume that the Government, if it subsidised the . industry, could withdraw at any time from further commitments. If a company was given a subsidy in the beginning there was-a, very good chance that it might be looked upon as a moral obligation on the part of the Government. Thus the Government would be ,on much more secure ground if it did the work itself. ': •

There had been a great agitation for the Slate to assist the wood pulp industry, and the decision of the previous Government in the matter was a recognition that a moral obligation for unknown expenditure^ wbuld be incurred if assistance we're granted, and that the claims upon the Government to see the company through would increase according to the needs of the company, which could not be measured. The 'decision then was founded upon a policy which directly refuted the argument advanced by Mr. Bodkin, and it was useless to ask the present Government, to act upon principles which had been so definitely rejected by its predecessors in office.

Discussing the attitude of the farming community towards the proposed industry, Mr. Mason said that he fully sympathised with their point of view, but he was : astounded to hear them say that the Government should not assist the industry in any way. The farming industry received every facility from the State, mostly by way of direct subsidies. Accordingly, he could hardly. Imagine the farmers say? ing that other industries should receive no assistance of any kind from the State

The member for Central Otago had said New Zealanders should beware of the» danger of economic • nationalism, Mr. Mason' said. Did the member think Now Zealand should, remain a large farm? To be a nation the Dominion must provide scope for the talents of the people. On patriotic grounds and on grounds of self-respect, economic nationalism must'be looked for. In the case before the House private enterprise had failed, and failed repeatedly.

A FAIR COMPENSATION,

Referring to the compensation clauses, the Minister said the purpose of the Bill was to be perfectly fair, and if the clauses did not provide all that was necessary—and he believed they did—they could be made better in Committee. He could not see why iron and steel should not be produced in New Zealand as successfully as in Australia or elsewhere.

Even if there was a small loss, surely New Zealanders were patriotic enough to pay a little for the development of .the country's resources.

"I'believe the country will be solidly behind the Minister of Industries and Commerce," said" Mr. Mason. "People will feel that. they will be entering upon a new era of development, when they will be stepping out of the primitive stage, when this country has been regarded as a gigantic barn. It will enable, us to develop In line with other countries, where there is diversified industry and where there is scope for all the people."

"FACING BOTH WATS."

Mr. W. J. Poison (National, Stratford) said that when it came to oil the Government left it to private enterprise, but when it came to steel the State took charge. The Government was facing both ways. It was a be^ trayal of the political principles which their forefathers established in this country. ■ The Government's policy was to use private enterprise when the risks were too great, and abuse it when they were not too great. It was a new absolutism masquerading as democracy. Mr. Poison said that there was little consolation for the farmer i. the proposal. He would be taxed for the manufacture of goods that, would cost him more than they, did today. •

He said that it looked as if it were retaliation against Britain to; satisfy the pique of one Minister for being taken down badly in connection with his efforts to negotiate trade agreements. v The Minister of Health (the Hon. P. Fraser): Utter rubbish!

Mr. Poison: The Hon. Minister Is a judge of rubbish. Mr. Fraser: I am when I/look at you.

Mr. Poison repeated' that the Government had completely changed its policy because one Minister failed to get his way on the other side of the world. He contended that while the Minister was in London he allowed the company to dangle for six months before he gave it a definite reply,

Mr. Nash said it was told in January, 1936, and it came baSk again in June, 1937, and was told again.'

Mr. Poison maintained that while private enterprise at Onekaka was failing the Government was willing to help, but when it showed signs of becoming organised the Government had changed its attitude. '