The Evening Star. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1936. INDUSTRIAL EFFICIENCY BILL.

Evening Star, Issue 22475, 21 October 1936, Page 10

The Evening Star. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1936. INDUSTRIAL EFFICIENCY BILL.

Ik theory New Zealand’s Labour Government stands lor free speech and individual liberty. In practice, however, the tendency is the other way. When Mr Jordan spoke at Geneva with great frankness on grave international issues ho was applauded by Labour supporters, but when Lord Klibank, speaking from his wide experience of Umpire matters, gave the Government some wholesome and friendly advice on the Efficiency Bill his remarks were strongly resented by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Industries and Commerce. Probably in time Labour will overcome its extreme sensitiveness to criticism

and adopt a broader philosophy on political matters, in which there is always bound to be difference of opinion. The proceedings in the House of Representatives last night in the committee stages of the Industrial Efficiency Bill show that the Government had made up its mind to disregard the advice tendered to it to hold the measure over for further consideration. Opposition members, very properly, contested clauses with which they disagreed. They had no hope of having them eliminated from the Bill, but they fulfilled their duties in drawing attention to what they regarded as its objectionable features. There was much point in a remark by Mr Bodkin last night that there might be isolated instances —the fishing industry perhaps—to which the measure could be applied with advantage, but its general powers were dangerous.

The Government was not to he deterred from reaching its objective. In thirty-six divisions all the amendments moved by the Opposition were rejected decisively, and at 7 o’clock this morning, after an all-night sitting, the Bill passed through the committee stages and passed its third reading. The Legislative Council is hardly likely to attempt to make any serious amendments in it. Ministers previously had introduced amendments to the Bill, but it is still of a farreaching and revolutionary character, giving tremendous powers in the matter of trade regulation through the Bureau of Industry. Objections were made that the bureau would have power to initiate plans while the industry concernecbhad no voice in them. One of the Government’s amendments made a concession in this respect by providing that before the Minister ratified a particular plan a vote of the industry affected would be first taken. Mr Sullivan said last night that the Bill would not dragoon anybody. If the weight of the industry was not in favour of the plan then the plan would not be applied—unless the Government went to the House for legislation. The Minister added that it was the most democratic piece of legislation to be found in any part of the Empire. But is it? Clearly what is meant is that if a vote by an industry is adverse to a plan placed before it then the plan will be discarded unless the Government of the day considers that in the interests of the country it should go through, in which case it would introduce legislation to effect its purpose. Thus power is retained to rationalise any industry if the Government thinks fit to do so. Mr Nash, on the eve of his departure for the Home Country, had some words to say against dictatorships as opposed to democracy, mentioning Russian, German, and Italian methods. But there seems to be only a difference of degree in comparison with New Zealand. There is a very thin partition between Government control as proposed in this Dominion in various ways and the totalitarian state regulations in other countries. Mr A. Hamilton said last night that he was surprised at Labour members allowing Parliament in so large a degree to hand over its powers to the Government. The member for Wallace forgets that this is quite in accord with the Labour policy of regimentation.