TO CONTROL INDUSTRY.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVI, Issue 261, 2 October 1936, Page 9

TO CONTROL INDUSTRY.

WIDE POWERS OF NEW BILL. CO-ORDINATION PLANS. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Oct. 1. This afternoon, in the House of Representatives, urgency was accorded the second reading of the Industrial Efficiency Bill, the second reading of which was moved by Hon. D. G. Sullivan, Minister of Industries and Commerce . The Minister said the Bill was desirable in the interests of the country unless they were to shut their eyes to what had existed in the past and to neglect the utilisation of the natural resources of the country. Had he not brought the measure forward, a similar measure for the preservation of industries would have been necessary in the future. The Minister said lie had been told by a reliable person that there were far more coal mines in New Zealand than the requirements of the Dominion justified. The Government had had no control over the opening up of new mines on freehold property, and the industry had become over-capitalised. It was urged that the future of the industry should be controlled. That was not the only industry that suffered from lack of co-ordination. The flax industry was another, and he was_ making an effort to rejuvenate that industry so that it could play the part it ought to play in the economic development of the Dominion. There was a widespread tendency throughout the world to introduce phases of the measure, often involving co-ordination, often involving licensing, but all involving a substantial control of industry to prevent over-capitalisa-tion, Mr Sullivan added. The newspapers had taken a fair view of the Bill and had given it some measure of support. He was pleased manufacturers were giving their general support to the Bill. Mr W. .T. Poison: Are they asking for licensing? Mr Sullivan: Yes. The Minister went on to say that he had received an intimation that manufacturers generally approved of the Bill, including licensing and coordination. Tliere were some amendments they would like, and to some degree lie had endeavoured to meet them regarding representation on the Bureau of Industry. The whole of the manufacturers did not support the Bill, but lie thought three-fourths of the organised manufacturers approved of it. BEST PRINCIPLES SOUGHT. In the main, the issue was whether they were to have a survival of the fittest, free cut-throat competition and the law of the jungle, or whether they were to have organisation, ordered industrial life and an application of the best principles of civilisation to the conduct of industry. As far as trade unionists were concerned, they had settled the issue for themselves long ago. To-day there was a surplus number of competing units and cut-throat competition, and week after week he had representations from industry after industry, business after business and service after service in his office, asking for something better, asking for co-ordination and co-operation, asking for the opportunity of conducting their businesses on a principle that would enable them to get some happiness out of life and put an end to the desperate daily cut-throat competition in which they were involved, and in anticipation of the present Bill or a similar Bill they had set about the task of preparing their efficiency schemes. The Bill was intended .to produce organisations between all sections of manufacturers, workers and consumers for the good of industry and under the parentage and guidance of the State. If it was necessary for industries to have tariff protection and subsidies and assistance from the State, it was equally justifiable, and quite right

and proper, that the State itself should exercise supervision over the development of those industries. It was not intended to start rationalising all industries at once and keep the Bureau of Industry working day and night. His idea was to take one industry which was ripe for rationalisation and set the machinery in motion, and then take one industry at a time. As they went along they would gain experience as to what was the most effective way of working. If they endeavoured to deal with many industries at once, they would get into difficulties. BILL '“TOO DANGEROUS> Mr iS. G. Holland said that, although Mr Sullivan had spoken tor 2f hours he (Mr Holland) was still thirsting for knowledge. He said the Bill savoured. of the Soviet system, though private ownership remained. The task the Minister nad tackled was one ol extreme difficulty and great complexity. He thought the Bill was too dangerous to proceed. Traders and manufacturers had turned to the Government for some form of relief from th© problems that faced them, and the desire for some form of control was expressed, as it was thought it would rid the manufacturers of some of their problems. He believed many allegations of inefficiency were unjustified. He 6aid they were often made by those who had' not a full knowledge of the position. He considered industry in New Zealand was reasonably efficient, but there was still room for improvement. He was in complete agreement with several provisions of the Bill, and believed a live bureau could be of great service to industry by cooperating with the Department of Industrial and Scientific Research and passing along the information it received to the manufacturers. He said a bureau that functioned in an advisory capacity would be welcomed by all manufacturers, but giving a bureau control of industry was a different matter. He strongly opposed handing over the industries of New Zealand, whether primary or secondary, to a bureau composed of civil servants. He believed that, with a little strengthening of the present system, industry would be able to survive and prosper. If socialisation of industry tailed, private enterprise had to bear the loss. If it succeeded, the scheme would be definitely limited to the amount of production, type of goods produced, and the profits to l>e made. Mr Holland said the Bill did not respect the right's of private individuals. The Bill was vague in many respects, and it was also indefinite. He claimed that secondary industries should receive more support, and said that while £700,000 was spent on agricultural industries secondary industries had only £28,000 spent on them.

Mr T. H. McCombs said the Bureau of Industry would lay down the plan an industry was to follow and would then leave it to work out the details for itself. In the past, industry had been dealt with piecemeal, but the present Government had decided to deal with it as a whole, and, the Bill before the House was the result. He referred to the way in which the dairy i nd us try had been rationalised and said the same could be done in other industries. STRONG CRITICISM. Mr \V. J. Poison said the responsibility of the Government was not merely to some particular industry, but to the people who had created the opportunity tor that industry. What, he asked, would an avowedly socialistic Government do with the great powers given in the Bill? He believed that a greater measure of co-ordination could be brought about with benefit to the industry. The Government officials on the bureau would be entirely under the thumb of the Minister, and they could know nothing about industry. He criticised the proposal to make levies without the authority of Parliament, and said it amounted to extra taxation imposed without the knowledge or consent of Parliament. The powers taken by the Government under the Bill were greater than those taken by any other country. The legislation was not a bad imitation of the German plan. The proposals were not new, but had been tried out in the times of the Tudors and their successors. There were powers in the Bill that would have serious consequences in industry, and there were power’s that would stifle free competition. It was a nationalisation of industry, not rationalisation. The Bill he was afraid, might lead to chaos, and he thought the country might yet need a Cromwell to save it. It was a tragedy, and the results would not be what the Government expected. Mr C. M. Williams said New Zealand still had the problem of unemployment before it, and the Bill, in company with other legislation that had been passed, would assist industry and develop new industries. He reminded Mr Poison that the previous Government gave the Dairy Control Board power to make a levy on the dairy industry. He said it was extreme competition that led to inefficiency, and he referred to the efforts in Britain to organise industry. Mr Williams admitted that the Bill would be dangerous if administered by certain people, but it would not be dangerous in the way the Labour Party would administer it. The Bill protected business people against illconceived and unfair competition. He opposed a postponement of the Bill, as it would give the Minister an opportunity to do much good work in rationalising industry during the recess. Sir Alfred Ransom said he regarded the Bill as one of the most dangerous enactments ever submitted to the House and one calculated to do a great deal of harm to secondary industries. He claimed that little attention could be paid to the opinions of the newspapers and manufacturers, as the Bill had been before the House only a few days. Neither members, nor others, had been able to digest its provisions, and later, when the provisions were fully known, they would get the tine opinions of those who would be affected by the measure. The measure was 60 farreaching in its effects that members should have ample opportunity of expressing their opinions upon it. The debate was adjourned and the

House rose at midnight till Tuesday afternoon, because of to-morrow’s functions connected with the Federation of Chambers of Commerce. I