STATE CONTROL

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22543, 7 October 1936, Page 15

STATE CONTROL

MB. HABGEST'S FEARS MINISTER AS DICTATOR "SOP TO MANUFACTURERS" [BY TELEGRAPH—SPECIAL REPORTER] WELLINGTON, Tuesday The fear that the Industrial Efficiency Bill was designed to allow the Government to exercise Socialistic control over all industry was expressed bv Mr. J. Hargest (Opposition—Awarua) during the debate on the bill in the House of Representatives to-day. "The setting up of any competent body to advise the Government and industry generally on industrial development would he welcome," Mr. Hargest said. "However, the aim of this bill does not appear to bo the establishment of a competent advisory body, but rather complete Government control. In the first place, there is an all-embracing definition of industry. I fake it that the Minister intends to bring under the legislation the farming industry of this country so that he will be able to dictate just what crops will be planted, just what flocks will be kept and the entire management of the industry. Lesson from United States "If he has it in his mind to manago the farming industry 011 these lines he would be well advised to remember what has happened in the United States during the past few years." The bill had two main objectives, Mr. Hargest continued. In the first place it offered a sop to manufacturing industries by making it impossible for new industries to commence. Secondly, it aimed at making the Minister of Industries and Commerce the industrial dictator of the whole country. At the moment industry was labouring under increased costs as a result of higher wages, reduced hours and steeper taxation.

Tho bill offered some manufacturers the opportunity of becoming monopolists. Having lost a great deal as a result of the legislation of tho last few months they now saw a ehauce to regain the lost ground. Under tho terms of the bill industries from overseas would not care to commence operation and higher tariffs on top of higher costs would bring about further increases m prices. Case for Private Enterprise "This country was built up by the enterprise and ability of the ordinary private business man and farmer," Mr. Hargest continued. "There has been amazing progress in less than a hundred years and if private enterprise ifi left alone it is safe to predict that there will be an even greater advance during the second hundred years of our history. "Industrialists as business men know the difficulties with which they are confronted and although the present Minister and the present Government have been interested in industry for years ! their interest has beon solely on tho side of the workers. Tho bill gives every indication that the Government intends to Socialise and Sovietise industry." Mr. Hargest said the Bureau of Industry coukl not bo regarded as a proper advisory body. Industrial committees representing particular industries might serve a useful purpose, but not when they were under tho complete domination of the Minister. As it was, tho Government and the bureau would have no financial responsibility. They could make orders for regulation, but any losses would have to be met by industry itself.

PROTECTING INVESTORS SUPPORT FOR MEASURE "THE COMMONSENSE THING" [BY TELEGRAPH —SPECIAL REPORTER] WELLINGTON, Tuesday The contention that the Industrial Efficiency Bill would give protection to tho investing public as well as the people as a whole was advanced by Mr. H. M. Christie (Government —Waipawa) during tho debate on the bill in tho House to-night. The Minister had no intention of interfering in any business where it could be avoided, said Mr. Christie. It was becoming increasingly obvious that some regulation of industry was necessary. The bill was merely keeping pace with present-day conditions. The old cry that competition was the life of trade did not apply to-day. It was increasingly difficult for businesses to stand alone, and in Great Britain, where the conditions were also very difficult, there was a demand for the control and regulation of industry. The bill would protect not only those who might invest their money in unsound business propositions, added Mr. Christie, but the community as a whole, because uneconomic businesses must react againt the people of New Zealand generally. In introducing the bill the Minister was doing tTie commonsense thing.