CONTROL OF INDUSTRY

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXX, 8 October 1936, Page 8

CONTROL OF INDUSTRY

BILL FURTHER DISCUSSED “FAR-REACHING MEASURE”

: (From “The Mail’s” Parliamentary Reporter) j WELLINGTON, This Day. Further agreement on the Industrial Efficiency Bill was heard in the House of Representatives yesterday afternoon, when the second reading debate was continued. | Mr L. G. Lawry (Government, lOtaki) said that there was a desire i that New Zealand should absorb some |of the teeming millions in Britain, but (they could not entertain the question ! ol - immigration until the Dominion had put its own internal economy in order. They should so organise thenforces so as to combat the economic warfare going on outside the Dominion. Industry could produce more under State supervision than under private enterprise. If the Dominion desired to retain its identity as such it could not afford to take the line of least resistance so far as the economic and social welfare was concerned. The Bill aimed at making industry more efficient and competent. There was no need to be afraid of the licensing of industry. It was hoped, by a regul- 1 ated system of licensing, that in- ' dustry would be so organised that they would do away with a lot of the misery, fear and greed now existing.

EMPIRE BUILT ON PRIVATE ENTERPRISE

Mr W. P. Endean (National, Parnell) said the British Empire was built up by private enterprise, and he predicted that before many years were over New Zealand would return to private enterprise. Bureacratic control had a strangle hold on Russia and under the Bill something similar would be brought about in the Dominion. The Bill set out to produce industrial efficiency; that was a high ideal. It had to be remembered, however, that human nature had to be taken into account and that different people had a different mental outlook. He contended that the Bill if passed into law would restrict immigration and prevent the flow of capital into New Zealand from overseas. A considerable sum of money had been driven out of New Zealand owing to the advent of the Labour Government. People would not wish to come to New Zealand when they learned that they would not be permitted to commence business until they obtained a Government license. Much of the country’s development was due to capital coming in from England. A principle of British justice was that if rights were taken away compensation should be paid. The Minister of Industries and Commerce, Mr Sullivan: I have already stated that if a person is put out of business the people who benefit should compensate him. That is a part of the plan.

i Mr H. G. Dickie (National, Pa tea) said if the Government gave 100 per cent support to an industry,and it got into difficulties, the Government ; might have to come in and save their I own people from destruction. Criticis- ! jng the constitution of the bureau he 'said that the whole “box and dice” of them would not know as much as one good business man. He also said that members of bureau should not be allowed to hold shares so that there would be no suspicion of graft. He | claimed that the Bill, instead of lead- | ing to efficiency, would lead to stag- ’ nation. IMPLICATIONS OF BILL The Leader of the Opposition (the Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes) said that many people in industry—people who did not belong to an association —were not fully aware of all the implications of the Bill and further opportunity should be given them to make themselves conversant with all the provisions. It would be wise to allow that to be done.

The Minister of Labour (the Hon. H. T. Armstrong): Cheer up a bit. Mr Forbes said he was not down hearted but it must be understood that the people could see the fallacies in connection with the socialistic state. The Minister might be down-hearted when he found that the people were not clamouring to be brought under a state of socialism. A socialistic state could not be brought about without the strictest discipline. There was an indication that some of the legislation was moving in that direction. The Minister was given full control if he wished to use the powers conferred by the Bill. The individual did his own planning but now it was to be handed over to somebody else. If there was a blot in the Bill, said Mr Forbes, it was in the provision to have civil servants to control industry. They might be most capable as far as their own departments were concerned but where was their training in conducting industry? The Minister said that the manufacturers had expressed the view that they had been met fairly in respect to having representatives of industry included. Mr Coates: Two manufacturers to four civil servants. The setting up of the Bureau was regarded with a good deal of concern by those in industry said Mr Forbes. The Bill was not going to make for the progress that it was hoped would be made. There was a danger that the majority in an industry would want to put a brake on the more efficient units of that industry. (Continued on Page 11)