BRITISH CAPITAL

Grey River Argus, 19 October 1936, Page 8

BRITISH CAPITAL

Shy of N.Z. 7 ONLY MIGRANTS OFFERED LORD ELIBANKIS IDEAS. (Per Press Association). DUNEDIN, October 15. Speaking at a dinner to-night tendered to° the overseas Chamber of Commerce conference delegates, who are visiting Dunedin, Lord Elibank said that, the subjects and problems with which the federation dealt provided ample opportunity for many speeches and responses, and after a congress of the kind just held they had to come t° earth and grapple wit.i the practical and real elements of the difficulties they had been legislating for. , , , Lord Elibank referred to the statement of the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. M. J. Savage) at a State luncheon that New Zealand was looking for fresh capital for investment from overseas. As a result, the delegates had been investigating conditions and searching for opportunities for the investment of such capital. Their search had been a genuine and painstaking one. but he would like to point out that British, capital was conservative, and although it was not afraid of taking risks it asked for a square dea., under conditions which it could understand. It did not expect to be taxed out of business as soon as it was invested. Having studied local conditions very closely he had come to the conclusion that conditions were arising and legislation was being passed which British capital could not be expected to understand, and for that reason British capital vas be coming very shy of New Zealand investments. In this, he would like to say that he was speaking as an individual with a personal and active interest in New Zealand commerce. Lord Elibank said he was connected with two companies doing extensive business in New Zealand, and he felt he was entitled, without trespassing on any hospitality to comment on a measure that was of the utmost importance to overseas capital. Ho teferred to the Industrial Efficiency Bill. He believed that he was justified in the capacity he had described, and in view of certain statements made by the Minister for Industries and Commerce (Hon. D’. G. Sullivan) in what he would say. The Bill, he knew, had met with a lot of opposition, for they were, not like Arthur Balfour; they read the Press. If it. had not been for llhe statements he had read in the newspapers, he would not have intruded into what might reasonably be described as a. New Zealand affair. The Minister for Industries and Commerce, in referring to the opposition to the Bill in the House of Representatives, had said that as fai_ as he could see the only real opposition was coming largely from bodies composed of representatives of overseas companies. Surely, said Lord Elibank, these bodies —and he, as one of the representatives who had not made a protest, proposed to do so now—were, in the light of their investments. just as much interested in the prosperity, progress, and development of New Zealand as even local bodies themselves. Tn any event, outside, companies which were providing large capital were glad to do so, and were prepared to go on doing so, but if that was the way they were to betrented there was little hope that any more capital would come from the place from which most of it came, namely, the City of London. The Minister had gone on to say that the principles of the Bill were operated in other countries particularly Great Britain, though he admitted that they dealt, with specific industries. “I think.” Lord Elibank continued, “that the Minister is under a misapprehension, I do not think for a moment that he would try to misrepiesent anyone, but it is easy to fall into errors about what >s happening 12,000 miles away, and I can assure you that no 1/11 has been passed in Britain that contains the. provisions incorporated in the lindirstrial Efficiency Bill. It is true to say that in Great Brtain certain industries have approached the Government, and asked, in view of their difficulties, that it should help them' and sec if it could put. their houses in order. Then the British Government stepped in and any legislation passed has been passed* nd hoc and for the specific industries. That is a very different thing from a Bill like the Industrial Efficiency Bill. I have read that Bill and I do not propose to analyse it. That is not my affair, and all I propose to say is that the Industrial Efficiency Bill is an omnibus Bill, under which any industry e an .bo taken charge of by a body of civil servants calling itself a Bureau of Industries. I, cannot conceive of the British Government even having such a Bill in contemplation.” “I venture to suggest to the Government,” he continued, “that it. might g've us in Great Britain ——and we aie representatives of these outside companies—some opportunity of saying something about this Bill and the have a great, stake in your countrv, measures it contains. We, after all, and we have, perhaps, an even greater stake than may be thought at once, because I find on reference to the export figures of New Zealand, that of the £47.090,090 of exports which left New Zealand in 1934, £38.000 000 or SO per cent, went to the United Kingdom, and so we are your customers.

“I think it was that great merchant. George Selfridge, who had said: ‘Customers are always right, I won’t claim’ that, but at least, they deserve consideration. I should like to make this appeal to the Government that it should not pass this Bill and that it should he held up until the Minister for Finance (Hon. AV. Nash), who is going to England; lyas had an opportunity of ascertaining from the Government of Great Britain what it feels this Bill may moan and also that ho might have an opportunity of conferring with the City of London to ■ascertain what its view is on the provisions contained in this measure.”