“LAW OF THE JUNGLE OR CIVILISED PRINCIPLES?”

Northern Advocate, 2 October 1936, Page 6

“LAW OF THE JUNGLE OR CIVILISED PRINCIPLES?”

Industries Efficiency Bill

Mr. Sullivan

OPPOSITION CLAIM MEASURE GOES TOO FAR

I Per Press Association. — Copyright .]

WELLINGTON. This Day TTRGENCY was accorded the second reading of the Industrial Efficiency Bill in the House of Representatives yesterday afternoon and the debate went on until midnight without a division being taken.

The second reading was moved by the Minister of Industries and Commerce, the Hon. D. G. Sullivan, who 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 the industiies would have been necessary in the future.

Too Many Calamities.

He had been told by a reliable person that there were far more coalmines in New Zealand than the requirements of the Dominion justified, and the Government had had no control over the opening up of new mines on freehold property. The industry had become overcapitalised.

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 part it ought to play in the economic development of the Dominion. There was a widespread tendency

throughout the . world to introduce y phases of the measure, often involving co-ordination, often involving licensing, but' all involving a substantial control of industry to prevent over-capitalisation. The newspapers had taken a fair view of the Bill and had given it some measure of support. He was pleased that the manufacturers were giving general support to the BUI. Mr W. J. Poison (Opposition—StratIhford): Are they asking for licensing? 11l Mr Sullivan: Yes. Ip The Minister went on to say that F®the manufacturers generally approved he had received an intimation that the Bill, including licensing and coordination. There were some amend■“vments they would like, and, to some he had endeavoured to meet them. The Issue. Regarding representation on the Bureau of Industry, the whole of the manufacturers did not support the Bill, but he thought that three-fourths, of the organised manufacturers aps proved the Bill in the main. The issue was whether they were to have the survival of the fittest, free cut-throat competition, and the law of the jungle, or whether they were to have an organised, ordered industrial life and the application of the best principles df civilisation in (the conduct of industry.

If it were 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 to keep the Bureau of Industry working day and night. His idea was to take one industry which was ripe for rationalisation, set machinery in motion, and then to take on an 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.

“Savours Soviet System.”

During the evening session, Mr S. G. Holland (Opposition—Christchurch North) said that although Mr Sullivan had spoken for 2\ hours he (Mr Holland) was still thirsting for knowledge. He said the Bill savoured of the Soviet system, though private ownership ermained.

The task the Minister had tackled was one of 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 the problems that faced them and the desire for some form of control was expressed, as it was thought it would rid manufacturers of some of their problems. He 1 believed many allegations of inefficiency were unjustified and said that they were often made by those who had not a full knowledge of the position. He considered that industry in

New Zealand was reasonably efficient, , but that there was still room for an improvement. He was in complete agreement with several provisions -f the Bill and believed that a live bureau could be of great service to industry by co-operating with the Department of Industrial and Scientific Research and passing along information it received to the manufacturers.

“A Different Matter.”

As far as trade unionists were concerned, they had settled the issue for themselves long ago. Today there was a surplus numbe-r of competing units and cut-throat competition, and week after week he had deputations 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 and asking for an opportunity of con--ducting their businesses on a principle that would enable them to get some happiness out of life, and put an end to the desperate daily cutthroat competition in which they are involved. Go Slowly First. 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 an organisation between all sections of manufacturers, workers, and consumers for the good of industry, and under the parentage and guidance of the State.

He said that a bureau that functioned in an advisory capacity would be welcomed by all manufacturers, but giving the bureau control of industry was a different matter. He strongly opposed the handing over of 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 the Socialism of industry failed, private enterprise had to bear the loss. If it succeeded, the scheme would be definitely limited as to amount, production and type of goods produced and the profits to be made.

Mr Holland said the Bill did not respect the rights of private individuals. It 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 (Government— Lyttelton) said the function of the Bureau of Industry would be to lay down a plan industry was to follow. It would then leave industry to work out the details for itself. He said that, in the past, industry had been dealt with piecemeal, but the present Government decided to deal with it as a whole and the Bill before the House was the result. He referred to the way the dairy industry had been rationalised and said the same could be done in other industries. Responsibility To People. Mr Poison said the responsxoility of the Government was not merely to some particular industry, but to the people who had created the opportunity for industry. What, he asked, would the 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 I industry. Government officials on the bureau would be entirely under the thumb of the Minister and they would 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. He said the powers taken by the Government under the Bill were greater than these taken by any other country, and added that the legislation was not a bad imitation of the German plan. The proposals were not new, but had been tried cut in Britain in the times of the Tudors and their successors. “Nationalisation.” There were powers in the Bill that would have serious consequences in industry, and there v/ere powers that would stifle free competition. It was 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 (Government— Kaiapoi) 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 the extreme competition that led to inefficiency, and 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 ill conceived and unfair competition. He opposed the postponement of the Bill as it would give the Minister opportunity to do much good work in nationalising industry during the recess. “Dangerous Enactment.” The Hon. Sir Alfred Ransom (Opposition—Pahiatua) 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 the 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 true opinions of those who would be affected by the measure. The Bill was so far-reaching 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 today’s functions connected with the Congress of the Federation of Chambers of Commerce of the Britsih Empire.