INDUSTRIAL PUNNING

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23001, 2 October 1936, Page 7

INDUSTRIAL PUNNING

REGULATION AND CONTROL TUTELAGE OF THE STATE MEASURE BEFORE THE HOUSE ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY (From Our Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, Oct. 1. Various reasons in justification of the proposals for the regulation and control of industry which are outlined in the Industrial Efficiency Bill were advanced by the Minister of Industries and Commerce (Mr D. G. Sullivan) in moving the second reading of the Bill in the House of Representatives to-day. Mr Sullivan’s speech lasted for two hours and 20 minutes. Legislation of the type contained in the Bill was vitally necessary, the Minister said. The manner in which several important industries had been allowed to languish or had become over-capitalised was proof that a measure of control was required. A man who was acknowledged to be a leading figure in the coal industry had informed him that the system of company mining today was chaotic and that a system of licensing was urgently required. The coal industry, in the opinion of many, was lacking in control, organisation, and co-ordination, and it was not the only industry in the Dominion which had suffered in the same way. The flax industry, which had once been flourishing, was not in a position to-day to meet the insistent demands for fibre from other parts of the world and that was purely the result of lack of control in the past. “We owe it to future generations to take the necessary steps to protect our national assets,” Mr Sullivan continued. “ I am hoping to rejuvenate the flax industry—to restore it to its ancient splendour so that it will be able to play the part it ought to play in the economic development of the country. These, however, are only illustrations. They can be multiplied time and again to prove that planning and control have been overlooked for years. It is only by control that we can prevent a repetition or a continuation of past mistakes.”

The principles embodied in the Bill, the Minister said, were finding an increasingly wide application throughout the world. Different schemes of co-ordination, amalgamation and licensing were being employed, and in one country, on account of over-capitalisation in certain directions, it was stipulated that no new factories should be established. Great Britain was dealing with the question piecemeal, industry by industry but schemes for the rationalisation and control of industry were in operation in the United States and numerous European countries. BILL WELL RECEIVED Mr Sullivan said he had not been disappointed with the reception of the Bill. Even the criticism of the newspapers had been somewhat restrained, and their main request was for more time for consideration of the measure. The attitude of manufacturers generally had been quite fair. Highly-placed officials of the manufacturers’ organisations had taken the view that the Bill was desirable and that it should go on the Statute Book in the interests of the manufacturing industries. Certainly the manufacturers were not unanimous, and even those who supported the Bill might not agree with some of the clauses. The Bill, however, was definitely wanted by a majority of the organised manufacturers in New Zealand.

Mr j. G. Coates (Opposition, Kaipara): But this Bill covers more than manufacturers.

“ That is so,” replied the Minister, “ but the main point is much wider than that. It is a question whether the law of free and cutthroat competition—the law of the iungle and the survival of the fittest—is to be the law of the future, or whether we are to have the law of a commonsense civilisation with organisation on modern lines.” There was an analogy between the position of industry to-day and the position of Labour years ago, the Minister continued. With the advent of the machine, Labour in its widest sense became a disorganised rabble. Men tried to sell their labour for the best price possible and the result was low wages, degradation, starvation, and miserjf. Their salvation came through the organisation of unionism and the collective selling of labour. To-day the seller of goods was in difficulties. There was disorganisation owing to the superfluous number of competing units. Week after week requests came to him for Government intervention and assistance, and it was clear that only through proper organisation could industry play its proper part in the life of the community. STATE SUPERVISION “Already several industries in the Dominion have started on the task of preparing their own efficiency schemes,” Mr Sullivan said. “ Some are well advanced. Opposite suggestions have been made that this legislation may result in a capitalistic monopoly or in a system of control by the workers. I admit that as far as the workers are concerned we are adopting a method which has not been adopted elsewhere. We are associating them with the preparation of industrial plans. We envision the co-operation of the manufacturers, the workers, and the consumers for the good of industry under the parentage and guidance of the State. If it is necessary for the State to grant tariff protection and subsidies to industry, surely it is equally justifiable that the State should exercise some supervision over industrial development.” The Minister said the Bureau of Industry to be established under the Bill would be a somewhat smaller and more compact body than the interim bureau which had been operating in recent months. The interim body, however, had done remarkably good work and had already blazed the trail for future progress in the application of research and standards to industry. “I admit that the Bill is very wide in its scope,” Mr Sullivan said, “ but the work has to be approached in a careful and discreet planner. We are not going to start off to rationalise every industry in the country overnight. We will probably take one industry which itself has been making requests for reorganisation and make a start on that, working in the early stages at one or two industries at a time. I do not shut my eyes to the dangers which may

exist with regard to the licensing of industry. We shall have to be careful in order not to stifle progress, but there are so many cases in which licensing provision are urgently required. If we recognise the dangers, however, we will be in a position to avoid them.” ISSUING OF LICENCES “ Does the Minister think it wise that the bureau and the Minister should have the last word when licences are being issued? ” asked Mr W. P. Endean (Opposition, Parnell.) “No Minister would desire personally to take the responsibility,” Mr Sullivan said, “ but in his own field the Minister in charge of a department is the highest representative of the State in that field. The Minister may appoint some person or persons to report to him concerning a licence.”

“ Why not let industries go to court? ” asked Mr Endean. “ There may be £ 100,000 involved, and you may be wrong.” “ The Minister may appoint a judge of the Supreme Court, or a magistrate, or a group of experts to do that work,” added Mr Sullivan. Mr Endean: Why not mention the tribunal?

“I am not going to argue with the honourable gentleman,” said Mr Sullivan, “ but I would get as near as possible to the course I have mentioned under the terms of the Bill. I think that would be a substantial safeguard.”

“A NEW DESPOTISM ”

CONTROL OF INDUSTRY POWERS VESTED IN MINISTER (From Our Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, Oct. 1. Practically the whole of to-day’s sitting of the House of Representatives was spent in the debate on the second reading of the Industrial Efficiency Bill which wa„ introduced last week. The debate wa. initiated by the Minister of Industries and Commerce (Mr D. G. Sullivan), who claimed that there was a definite need for it. Opposition members contended, hdwever, that it vested too great powers in the Minister and would bring about a greater degree of control of industry than was desirable.

The powers contained in the Bill for the making of Orders-in-Councii for the enforcement of any industrial plan were strongly criticised by Mr W. J. Poison (Opposition, Stratford). These powers, he said, assumed the full functions of Parliament, and in his opinion that was the most objectionable feature of the Bill. Mr Poison said he realised it was impossible to do without Orders-in-Council in modern government. When in opposition the members of the present Government had been very critical of the then Administration regarding the issue of Orders-in-Council. The powers of making regulations in the Bill constituted a new despotism which went to far greater lengths than anyone ever dreamed possible in a democratic country. “No country outside Russia or Germany has taken or attempted to take such powers as those in the Bill.” added Mr Poison. “ This legislation can strike a great blow, at private enterprise and industry generally, and it will be administered by a Government that is running in th« direction of complete socialisation. It means the establishment of a new tyranny and is a violation of every principle that the Labour Party has stood for.”

The opinion that the greatest obstacle industry had to face to-day was that of unrestricted competition, was expressed by Mr C. M. Williams (Govt., Kaiapoi). Mr Williams said that Mr Poison had claimed that competition encouraged efficiency, but the experience in New Zealand was exactly the opposite. In the dairy industry, for instance, competition had brought about overlapping in the collection of cream supplies, and it had even prevented the officers of dairy companies from carrying out the grading regulations as rigidly as they should for fear that suppliers would transfer their business to rival companies. “ The Executive Commission of Agriculture has power to direct the dairy industry,” added Mr Williams, “ and in the same way this Bill will give power to direct other industry. It is only to be expected that similar benefits will result in this case to those experienced when the dairy industry came under the control of a commission.” Other speakers were Messrs T. H. M'Combs (Govt., Lyttelton) and Sir Alfred Ransom (Opposition, Pahiatua). The House rose at midnight. PROMISES OF SUPPORT MANUFACTURERS IMPRESSED (Per United Press Association> WELLINGTON, Oct. I. Mr D. Henry, president of the New Zealand Manufacturers’ Federation, declared to-day that he was definitely and whole-heartedly in support of the Industrial Efficiency Bill. The general principles were endorsed by the Manufacturers’ Council last week, and a number of amendments had been proposed for the purpose of making the machinery safer and more effective. Mr J. T. Spears, vice-president, stated that he also supported the measure, which was designed to evolve economic order out of economic chaos. He was unable to withhold sympathy with the Minister in the earnestness with which the problem was being tackled. Mr Ambler, president-elect of the Auckland Association, said the Bill would undoubtedly be objected to by business men who still believed in the old laws of the jungle, but he strongly recommended the manufacturers to approach the scheme in a spirit of co-operation. The Wellington Association, following two days’ meetings, finally voted in favour of giving wholehearted support to the Bill, subject to one amendment, which, though important, did not in any way conflict with the declared policy of the Government. Mr Matheson, president of the Wellington Association, said to-day that he saw in the Bill a wonderful opportunity for progress in the manufacturing industry, and recommended his fellow-indus-trialists to give it support.