CONTROL OF INDUSTRY

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXX, 8 October 1936, Page 11

CONTROL OF INDUSTRY

FURTHER PROTEST SPEECHES (Continued from Page 6) (From “The Mail's” Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, This Day. Mr Forbes said that industry, under the provisions of the Bill, had to get over an extraordinary collection of conditions and hurdles. “They will have to be good hurdlers to get over the lot,” he added. How was it possible for an industry to be carried on under the restrictions imposed? he asked. For industry to be established a set of impossible conditions had to be complied with. Take licensing for instance. The Minister had the power to determine who' had to be licensed. Much pressure would be brought on the Minister by businesses which desired to obtain a monopoly. The powers being taken were unnecessary and would be an embarrassment to the Minister.

Mr Forbes referred to the control of the dairy industry and the control of the meat industry brought about under previous governments. In each instance the legislation was referred to select committees of the House and evidence was taken in order that the House could be advised by the committee. The danger in respect to the present Bill was that nothing of that character was being attempted. Why; was the Bill not referred to the Industries and Commerce Committee? If the, Bill had been sent to the committee he was confident that considerable amendment would have been recommended. All the House had was the statement by the Minister that everything was well; that he had practically satisfied the manufacturers. That was not sufficient for the House to agree to such legislation. Mr Forbes said that it would be better to deal with one industry and ascertain exactly what it required. Legislation could be prepared and be submitted to a committee and knocked into shape. The people would then understand what was being done and so would the House. The Minister would know what industry wanted to be included in such a measure.

The Minister: About twenty have asked to be included. Mr Forbes said the Minister should know whether it would be wise or not to deal with any industry. He moved, “That the Bill be referred back to the Government for the purpose of reconstruction on the lines of dealing only with a particular industry, or specified particular industries after a majority of those controlling such industry or industries concerned have expressed their desire to come under the provisions of the Bill.”

MR FORBES MOVES AMENDMENT Mr Forbes said he moved the amend ment to place on record what the Opposition considered the sensible and wise view, which would commend itself to the people in dealing with such a far-reaching question. It was no light matter. The Prime Minister must agree that he was not showing that consideration to the House by bringing down legislation of the kind at such a time. If the Bill went to a committee it would be examined along lines that would satisfy members and they would feel a greater degree of confidence in respect to the measure than if there was no such preliminary examination. It was unique in his experience of Parliament to have a Bill dealing with so many industries taken into its second reading without any preliminary examination by a committee. Not only manufacturers, but every business in the country should have had an opportunity of going before a Parliamentary committee and giving evidence. The amendment was seconded by Mr C. A. Wilkinson (National, Egmont), and when he rose to his feet Mr T. H. McCombs (Government, Lyttelton) provoked laughter by interjecting, “The old leader and the new leader.”

Mr Wilkinson said the Bill was not known to the people vitally concerned and the Government would be failing in its duty if it did not refer it to a committee to call evidence. The Leader of the Opposition had asked that the Bill should be referred to the Industries and Commerce Committee and that should be done. Tens of thousands of people came within the scope of the Bill which simply controlled the whole country. It was of such magnitude that it was absolutely essential that it should be held over for further consideration.

While he was opposed to the Bill, Mr Wilkinson added, he could not agree with those who said that no organisation of industry was necessary. He believed that there were many industries which were in need of organisation. He felt certain that the Minister did not want to hurt anyone, but he was mistaken in his ideas. If the Government put the Bill into operation, said Mr Wilkinson, it would do a very great wrong to enterprising people. The Bill was sweeping; it was drastic; and it affected the whole community—the whole field of

commerce and the whole field of activity. It simply meant handing over all initiative, all enterprise and all control to the Minister. He believed that the Minister felt that the Bill was shaky; that it was not too good. “It can’t be disputed that there is necessity for reorganisation in many industries in this country,” said Mr W. A. Bodkin (National, Central Otago). “If the Minister is anxious to reorganise industry, then if he has any knowledge of the world at all, and any knowledge of industry, he would know he can’t organise industry in this or any other country unless he gets the goodwill of those engaged in the industry.” He was very sorry the Minister had not seen fit to accept the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition.lf he hoped to obtain anything by the measure he must first obtain the confidence of every industry in the country. The Bill went farther than any legislation introduced into England. The maximum representation any industry could get on the proposed bureau when the particular industry was being considered was two. “I quite recognise that there may be industries that will welcome this, because they see in this legislation an opportunity to create good will, and see a possibility of eliminating competition and gaining price-fixation. I venture to say that there has not been one application to the Department of Industries and Commerce except it was with a view to price-fixation or control of industry.” Mr Bodkin urged upon the Minister the necessity for reducing the ranks of the unemployed. It could not be done effectively, he contended, without introducing capital into, industry, but capital would not be introduced until there was complete confidence

among those controlling industry. Mr W. J. Broadfoot (National, Waitomo) said that every industry would be tied hand and foot. Who had asked for the Bill? Mr T. H. McCombs (Government, Lyttelton): The manufacturers. Mr Broadfoot: Now the secret is out. He mentioned the opinion that all the manufacturers were of the unanimous opinion that this Bill should be made law. Were they going to have this legislation thrust on the people of the Dominion just because one small section wanted it. The small man of to-morrow, declared Mr Broadfoot, would not have a chance under this legislation. Industry would become the love of big capital, and the small man wohld not be able to stand up to the case big capital could bring forward. They had to beware of over-nationalisation. He said that appeals instead of being to the Minister should be to an independent tribunal. The Bill amounted to State control, and the man who put his brains and capital into industry would be only a figurehead. Mr D. McDougall (Independent, Mataura) opposed l an extension of time.

Mr H. S. S. Kyle (National, Riccarton) said that when he was in Australia recently he told the people there to beware of what was being done in New Zealand and that New Zealand was 'a good country to keep out of, over there they , were scared of what was being done here. He recalled the present Government’s objection to the boards and commissions set up by the last Government, but for every board the present Government had abolished, two had been set up. Every Bill that came down set up a board under another name. He ieclared that the previous members

of the Unemployment Board were working in the Labour Department and were administering the employment question just the same as they did previoupsly. Why did not the Government teli the people that? He urged the Government to postpone the measure.

; Mr W. J. Poison (National, Stratford) said that many manufacturers had taken the view that the Bill should be delayed. He supported the amendment so that the business people should have an opportunity of appreciating the Bill. The debate was adjourned.