INDUSTRIAL EFFICIENCY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23004, 6 October 1936, Page 7

INDUSTRIAL EFFICIENCY

PROVISIONS OF BILL DISCUSSED BY DUNEDIN CHAMBER SCOPE CONSIDERED TOO WIDE The .opinion that the scope of the Industrial Efficiency Bill now before Parliament is too wide, and concern lest the Bill, if full effect were given to its powers, would lead eventually to a complete socialisation of industry, "were expressed yesterday at a special meeting of the Dunedin Chamber of Commerce, called to consider the report of a sub-com-mittee set up to go into the provisions of the proposed legislation. Mr C. B. Barrowclough, who presided, said that the Bill was one of the: utmost importance to every member of the business community-, The Prime Minister (Mr M. J. Savage) had intimated that he did not to foist the Bill on the community if it did hot meet with the wishes of those concerned, and the meeting had therefore been called to obtain the consensus of opinion of the members of the chamber. As a preliminary, the chamber's honorary solicitor had been requested to collaborate with a small committee to draw up a memorandum, and this he proposed to submit to the meeting. Mr Brash said that by the Industrial Efficiency Bill, complete and absolute control of ,all callings, all businesses and all professions of every possible kind was placed in the hands of one man—the Minister of Industries and. Commerce. The Minister had power through his bureau to license persons to continue in their callings,.businesses or professions and to revoke those licences whereby persons might be prohibited from continuing their callings, businesses or professions, and further he. might prohibit new persons from entering upon or commencing any calling, business of profession, and he might favour one individual as against others. Through his bureau he might inquire into and decide upon the integrity of any man, his technical knowledge, his financial resources, his organising ability, the efficiency of his plant, and many other mat-, ters. He might prevent persons from selling their businesses by refusing to consent to an assignment of the licence. He might fix prices and discounts, and allot quotas to businesses whereby their outputs might be restricted. He might demand that businesses give up their existing systems of bookkeeping and costing, and adopt systems prej scribed by himself. He might make levies on businesses to raise the moneys required for carrying out industrial plans, and all these things might be done without any possibility of appeal save to the Minister himself. If such powers were exercised as were embodied in the Bill, monopolies in certain callings, businesses or professions might be vested in those concerns at the time actually engaged therein, or such of them as succeeded in obtaining licences, and all other persons might be prohibited from entering the favoured circle. Mr Brash suggested that in spite of criticism of the present competitive system of conducting businesses—and it might be recognised that no human system could hope to attain perfection—unrestricted competition, and that alone, had provided the urge which had led to ever-increasing improvements in devices and methods for manufacture and distribution and otherwise. Was it not a fact, he asked, that unrestricted competition concurrently with and despite the protection of labour by increased wages and shorter hours had resulted in the provision of manufactured goods and services for the people,of the world at prices which for many years had ever tended to become lower, the only hope of still lower prices lay in intensifying instead of eliminating competition? Would it not be wise, seriously to deprecate many of the applications that had recently been made to the Government to interfere in trade, seeing that each ap-plication-might provide justification for some sUch arbitrary control as was sought to be established by the Bill, and might bring about numerous, and far more serious, troubles than the immediate trouble sought to be remedied. Experience had shown that once State Control had begun, it tended inevitablv and increasingly to extend until in the end liberty would totallv disappear and initiative would be stifled. Mr Brash added that as a result of the Government regulation of trade there was already a monopoly in the flour-milling industry. If similar restrictions were made in other trades to which the Bill might be applied, there would be monopolies in those trades also. At present anyone who had the initiative to enter into a trade or business might do so, but he suggested 'that the people would not stand for their opportunities being restricted as could be done if the Bill became law. If this sort of thing were allowed the inevitable result would be State Socialism. Mr A. W. Jeavons said that in his opinion the principal danger of the Bill lay in the unlimited power it put in the hands of whoever might be holding the portfolio of Industries and Commerce. Bureaux would be set up consisting of civil servants and with the right to appoint representatives of the various industries and of sectional interests. The power, however, lay in the hands of civil servants, and most dangerous of all was the power of the Minister to veto findings or dismiss any member. The scope of the Bill was far too wide. Its provisions must be worked in accordance with a plan, and it was easy to visualise the interference in business before this plan was arrived at, irrespective of the interference caused by, the carrying out of the plan. He was sure that a great many people did not realise the importance of the Bill. There seemed to be an impression that it was designed to apply merely to manufacturers, but this was by no means the case; moreover, the manufacturers felt that they had not had sufficient time to consider the matter, as the Bill had not been long enough in their hands. The subcommittee had, therefore, concentrated on emphasising the need for postponement of the Bill, as by this course it seemed that there was not much, to be lost, but much to be gained. Mr Jeavons then moved the following resolution:— " That this chamber, representative of all classes of the commercial community, while admitting merit in the principles of the Industrial Efficiency Bill now before Parliament, desires to affirm the following objections:—(l) That as this Bill deeply concerns every possible type of business and profession and not

merely manufacturers, further opportunity should be given to all those interested to consider its provisions and implications and to make representations to the. Government; (2) that the Bill, as drafted, does not provide any adequate at all for the interests of those concerned; (3) that the powers conferred by the Bill upon the person for the time being occupying the position of Minister of Industries and Commerce are too extensive, and should be modified, and in particular that a right of appeal from Ministerial decisions to an independent tribunal should be provided for. For these general reasons, we strongly urge upon the Government the desirability of postponing consideration of the Bill till next session."

Mr H. L. Longbottom, who seconded the motion, said that if the Bill were passed, every phase of industry would come under its control. There might be some people who held that the time was ripe for some form of control over business by the Government, but once bureaucratic control came in, initiative and liberty would disappear, and industry, instead of pushing ahead, would languish; Mr Barrowclough: What has been said regarding the scope of the Bill is of paramount importance. Under it, power is given the Minister to regulate every phase of business. *Mr E. E. Nicholson deprecated any suggestion that there might be some merit in the Bill. This was conveycJ in the first portion of the motion, and he thought it was wrong. Any expression of appreciation should be left out. The Government was out to socialise the country, and it was the duty of the chamber to oppose such methods. It seemed to him that someone had been playing with the Government to have the Bill framed. Mr Jeavons explained that the resolution had been framed on the preamble to the Bill. Mr Nicholson: Which is like Mr Savage's preambles when he was getting into power. He gave everyone assurances that everything would be all right. Mr Jeavons admitted he had knowledge that some industries had approached the Minister to do certain things. Mr J. Sutherland Ross: You mean certain individuals in tries.

Mr Nicholson: To my mind, no Government should interfere in business. This one is out to take control if we give it the slightest chance. Mr Jeavons pointed out that what was principally required in the meantime was time to consider the Bill.

Mr J. Sutherland Ross suggested that the first portion of the motion be altered to read: " That this chamber, representative of all sections of the- community, desires to affirm the following objections to the Industrial Efficiency Bill now before Parliament," and added that he would like to see the words "at least" inserted in the final clause, before the words " till next session."

Mr Longbottom: We are only supporting what has already been done by the representatives of chambers in Wellington. The mover and seconder agreed to Mr Ross's suggestion, and the resolution, in its amended form, was carried, together with a motion that copies be sent to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Industries and Commerce (Mr D. G. Sullivan) and the Associated Chambers. THE AUCKLAND CHAMBER STRONG OPPOSITION EXPRESSED (Per United Press Association) AUCKLAND, Oct. 5. Strong opposition to the provisions of the Industrial Efficiency Bill were voiced at a special geaeral meeting of the Chamber of Commerce this morning, nearly 100 members attending. A resolution, moved by Mr F. G. Baskett, was carried, though there were a number of dissentients. The resolution expressed alarm at the far-reaching proposals contained in the Bill, involving bureaucratic control of all industrial and commercial activity in the Dominion, complete subjugation of all private enterprise without the provision of compensation, the unlimited powers granted to the Minister in taking away the right of the subject to appeal to the courts and urging on the Government the desirability of modifying the Bill, or, failing that, postponing further action until its far-reaching implications are understood by the public.