THE INDUSTRY BILL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23005, 7 October 1936, Page 10

THE INDUSTRY BILL

CONSIDERATION BY THE HOUSE MEASURE STRONGLY OPPOSED DEFENDED BY GOVERNMENT MEMBERS (From Ourt Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, Oct. 6. The whole of to-day's sitting of the House of Representatives was spent in further considei*ation of the Industrial Efficiency Bill, a total of 11 speakers taking part in the resumed second reading debate. The main objections raised by Opposition members were to the regimentation and regulation of industry, which, they claimed, would lead to a completely Socialist order. Government members, on the other hand, rested mainly on the contention that the present conditions of industry indicated the necessity for some form of control. Mr J. Hargest (Opposition, Awarua) expressed a fear that the Bill was designed to allow the Government to exercise Socialistic control over all industry. " The setting up of any competent body to advise the Government and industry generally on industrial development would be welcome," Mr Hargest said. " The aim of this Bill, however, does not appear to be the establishment of a competent advisory body, but rather complete Government control. In the first place there is an all-embrac-ing definition of industry. I take 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. If he has it in his mind to manage the farming industry on these lines he would be well-advised to remember what has happened in the United States during the past few years. "SOVIETISM" OF INDUSTRY "This country was built up by the enterprise and ability of the ordinary private business man and the farmer," Mr Hargest said. " There has been amazing progress in less than one hundred years, and if private enterprise is 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 oresent Minister and the present Government have been interested in industry for years, their interest has been solely on the side of the workers. The Bill gives every indication that the Government intends to socialise and Sovietise industry." The opinion that the Bill contemplated the payment of compensation in cases where an industry was adversely affected by any rationalisation plan was expressed by the Attorney-general (Mr H. G. R. Mason). Mr Mason said he thought that those who received benefits as a result of the operation of the Bill would 'be quite willing that any funds obtained by way of a levy should be used in part to indemnify those who suffered any detriment. AVOIDANCE OF WASTE " The purpose of this Bill is not to prevent anyone from making undue profits—another Bill has been passed for that purpose—but to introduce order into industry," said the Minister. " The member for Awarua talks of the glories of competition, but unrestricted competition has not proved the salvation of industry. The results of unrestricted competition are far from being so ' glorious' as the member for Awarua suggests. " To resist the Bill is to plead for waste and extravagance," Mr Mason continued. " The time for the introduction of a Bill of this sort is long overdue. If there are any deficiencies in this Bill I hope that wc shall have the help of members of the Opposition in .howing where it can be improved instead of that glorification of confusion which their statements rmount to. We can no longer have waste and confusion in industry. The job has to be tackled and a postponement will not make it any easier." MEASURE TOO SWEEPING Mr A. Hamilton (Opposition, Wallace) contended that the Bill was much too indefinite and placed far too wide a power in the hands of the Minister. No one doubted that there should be order in business, but because therr was 10 per cent, disorder in business or in society there was no reason why li should be regimented 100 per cent. Voluntary arrangements would be certain to operate much more satisfactorily. "The Labour Party ?an see no good in society at all,' Mr Hamil-. ton added. "It cannot see any good in the present system because someone has gone bankrupt or because someone else who should be getting 30s a week is getting only 10s. The Minister has asked for helpful criticism of the Bill. lam prepared to offer some by suggesting that he should scrap the Bill and bring in one that will deal with some definite branch of industry. As it is, this Bill will hang over the head of every industry in the country until it begins to operate and no one knows when that will be, since the only operative part of the Bill is that which sets up a board." No one would deny that the industries of the country must be developed, said Mr Hamilton, but it should be done in orderly fashion. With the licensing of industry there was always a danger that monopolies would be created, and from that it was only another step to the development of the trust system. The Bureau of Industry to be set up under the Bill would represent a more vicious type of bureaucracy than any board the last Government had established. NEED FOR CONTROL A suggestion that two experienced business accountants should be appointed to the Bureau of Industry was made by Mr C. H. Burnett (Govt., Tauranga). Mr Burnett said it was a great pity-there had not been such a Bill on the Statute Book 30 or 40 years ago. If there had been such legislation in existence, millions cf pounds would have been saved by people who had lost their money in all sorts of wild-cat schemes. The Bill was a step in the right direction, as there was ample scope for the rationalisation of both the primary and secondary industries VARIOUS OPINIONS " I don't believe this Bill is worth the paper it is written on," said Mr R. A. Wright (Ind., Wellington Suburbs). "I believe it will break down as soon as its provisions are

put into effect. Its real purpose is to support rings and combines and maintain prices under the guise of rationalisation. If the Bill does happen to be workable, it will form the thin end of the wedge of socialised industry." "A denial that there would be any element of dictatorship in the administration of the Bill was given by Mr J. Thorn (Govt., Thames). It had been sugested by Opposition members, Mr Thorn said, that the representatives of any industry on the bureau would be able to squeeze out any others who might be thinking of starting in that industry, but that would not occur because there would be a sufficient proportion of State representatives on the bureau to prevent it. It was said that the bureau would be in the position of a dictator, but in a democratic country like this no bureau could afford to be dictatorial in the issuing of licences. Mr Thorn said that Mr Hamilton had made a good deal of the fact that certain chambers of commerce had passed resolutions condemning the Bill, hut he forgot that almos f every important Bill brought down during the present or the last Parliament had been the subject of severe criticism from the chambers of commerce. The legislation of the past Government had frequently been criticised in that way. Other speakers were Mr B. Roberts (Govt., Wairarapa), Mr H. M. Christie (Govt., Waipawa), and Mr S. G. Smith (Opposition, New Plymouth). The House rose at 10.30 p.m.