BUREAUCRATIC CONTROL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23001, 2 October 1936, Page 8

BUREAUCRATIC CONTROL

INDUSTRIAL EFFICIENCY BILL FRAMEWORK OF SOVIET SYSTEM “ DANGEROUS LEGISLATION ” (From Our Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, Oct. 1. “ This Bill can undoubtedly be interpreted as the complete framework of a Soviet system, save that private ownership is to remain,” said Mr S. G. Holland (Opposition, Chrislqhurch North), when discussing the Industrial Efficiency Bill during the second reading debate on the Bill in the House of Representatives this evening. Mr Holland, while expressing the view that the manufacturers of the country would welcome any move to ensure greater industrial efficiency, claimed that the establishment of bureaucratic control of industry would never be voluntarily accepted. Mr Holland said that it seemed to him that the Bill represented a gigantic structural framework to which the weatherboards would be applied by regulations. There was a general wish to see the development of new industries on a sound basis and increased industrial efficiency, but the Minister had admitted that the Bill, if wrongly applied, could be of danger to the Dominion. The industrial system of New Zealand and, in fact, that of any country, was not in a position, however, to take the risk involved in any dangerous piece of legislation. Either the Bill should be more thoroughly thought out and more carefully planned, or it should not be introduced at all.

“I would say that, by and large, the industries of New Zealand are reasonably efficient,” Mr Holland said, “ but there is still room for improvement, of course, and there will always be as the world progresses. I believe that a really live bureau can Dnng immense service to industry, particularly in an advisory capacity. I think the Minister would find that industry in New Zealand would welcome with open arms an advisory bureau which, as part of its work, would assist by cooperating with the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and pass on the results obtained, but it' is entirely a different story when it comes to handing over the management of industry to the bureau.”

Mr Holland, when criticising the proposal to establish a. bureau composed of civil servants, paid a tribute to the Civil Service for its capacity,to carry on its own particular work. It could not be expected, however, that civil servants trained in their own peculiar sphere could step into the management of industry and achieve similar success there. He would not agree at all to the proposal to hand over industry to a bureau composed of civil servants. The Bill definitely provided that such a bureau would control industry with the Minister of Industries and Commerce superimposed as industrial dictator. He meant no reflection on the Minister in saying that, but there was the situation. “ This Bill means State control of industry with private ownership and private capital retained, but with a definite limit on the profits,” JVIr Holland said. “If the scheme of socialistic control of industry fails private enterprise would bear the entire loss. If the scheme succeeds the profits made by private enterprise will be definitely restricted. When it comes to bureaucratic control of industry I think that all the industry will join with me in saying that it will not stand for. such a scheme.” Mr Holland claimed that the men on the interim bureau of industry who. he supposed, would also find a place on the final bureau, were so busy with their own departmental duties that they could not find lime to devote to that additional important work. He also objected to the prospect of the bureau always having a majority of Government officers The Bill did not the rights of private individuals. he said. It was also a wrong principle that the Bill should provide for the payment of expenses incurred in preparing an industrial plan by the industries concerned. If the State assisted in the development of agriculture financially why not the development of secondary industries?