EFFICIENCY BILL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23006, 8 October 1936, Page 10

EFFICIENCY BILL

SECOND READING DEBATE CONTENTION BY OPPOSITION RESTRICTION ON IMMIGRATION AN AMENDMENT DEFEATED (From Our Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, Oct. 7. The Government's plans for the licensing and control of industry as embodied in the Industrial Efficiency Bill were discussed again at length in the House of Representatives today when the second-reading debate was resumed. There was only one Government speaker on the Bill during the whole day's sitting and when the Opposition members were nearing the end of their list they put forward an amendment that the Bill should be referred ba?k to the Government for reconstruction. Just before the House rose the amendment was defeated. The Bill was carried. .Four speakers contributed to the debate during the afternoon. ' The first speaker was Mr L. G. Lowry (Govt., Otaki), who emphasised the importance of organising industry in New Zealand with the object of absorbing the unemployed and later bringing immigrants to people the country for defence and general development purposes. The Bill represented an attempt to rationalise and coordinate industry with a view to eliminating wasteful competition, raising the standard of living of the worker, making confmerce healthier and benefiting the consumer. It was designed to bring about goodwill between the employer and the employee and the public, and to remove unfettered competition that was not conducive to the national welfare.- , „.,, ~ The contention that the Bill would prevent capital from coming into New Zealand and would also restrict immigration was made by Mr ' W. P. Endean (Opposition, Parnell). Mr Endean expressed the opinion that the Bill would have altogether . too wide an effect on industry and many people might be put out of . business; It was a principle of British justice, moreover, that people whose rights were taken away should be compensated. The Minister of Industries and Commerce (Mr D. G. Sullivan): I have already said that if a person is put out of business those who benefit should compensate him. That is part of the plan. Mr Endean suggested that where business to the value of £4ooi or over were affected in an application for a licence the applicant should have the same right of appeal as any litigant received in the courts Mr H. G. Dickie (Opposition, Patea) suggested that provision should be made along the lines of preventing any person connected with the Bureau of Industries from holding shares in any private con> pany. "We do not want any suspicion of graft at all in the operation of the legislation," Mr Dickie said. ''.. .■ : ;•:". Mr Dickie referred to the possibility of the Government having to step in and grant substantial financial assistance to industries conducted under the proposed legislation. It might be necessary for the Government to step in in order to save its own plans from destruction and the country might be involved in the wholesale bolstering up of industries which probably would be found to have been started 20 or 30 years before their time. Other speakers were the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Forbes), Mr C. A. Wilkinson (Opposition, Egmont), Mr H. S. S. Kyle (Opposition, Riccarton) and Mr W. J. Poison (Opposition, Stratford). The amendment was defeated and the House rose at 10.30 p.m. '. AN UNEXPECTED TURN AMENDMENT BY OPPOSITION RECONSTRUCTION OF Bill DESIRED (From Our P4RLlamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, Oct. 7. The second reading debate on the Industrial Efficiency Bill took an unexpected turn in the House of Representatives to-night when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr G. W. Forbes) moved an amendment to refer the Bill back to the Government for reconstruction. He expressed the view that the country was not sufficiently acquainted with its full implications, and that more time should be permitted individual manufacturers, apart from manufacturers' associations, to study the legislation. Mr Forbes said he was convinced that the country did not fully underi stand the proposals embodied in the ! measure. From the political viewpoint alone the Minister would be wise to allow more time for consideration of the principles propounded in the Bill. It might be true that manufacturers' associations had been consulted, but he felt sure, from conversations he had had with various industrialists, that individual manufacturers had not been in a position to study the legislation. Mr Forbes said it was clear that the objective of the Government was the conversion of New Zealand as rapidly as possible into a Socialist State, and the Bill before the House was designed to carry that policy a step further. A Government member: Cheer up. Mr Forbes: Oh, I am not downhearted, because I know the people nf New Zealand will not stand for

Referring to the Bureau of Industries, Mr Forbes condemned the Minister's proposal that it should comprise civil servants with a majority voice. No body of public servants could be expected to have a wide knowledge of the details of many industries at their finger tips. They were conservative in their outlook, and the Bill conferred powers on them that were too sweeping. If the Minister wished to make the Bill workable he should set out to secure the co-operation and advice of men qualified to judge an industry or a prospective industry by their actual experience of its ramifications. The proposed personnel of the bureau was the greatest weakness of the Bill. The array of conditions on which a new industry must satisfy the bureau represented the most extraordinary collection of hurdles that could have been erected against an enterprise, continued Mr Forbes. On the other hand, it was understandable that industries already operat-

ing desired that no outside concern should be given a chance to enter the field of production. There v/as no doubt that the Minister would have to withstand a great deal of pressure by applicants for licences to conduct an industry or shop or sell a certain line of commodities. It was only human on the part of manufacturers and retailers that they should try to secure a monopoly in their respective spheres. In taking powers to grant or refuse licences on his own initiative the Minister was storing up trouble for himself. Mr ' Forbes predicted that -the legislation, if ever it reached the Statute Book, would discourage capital from investing in New Zealand industries. Mr Sullivan: Oh, no. Mr Forbes: I am certain of it. Mr Forbes moved the following amendment:—" That the Bill be referred back to the Government for the purpose of reconstruction on the lines of dealing only with a particular industry or specified particular industries after a majority of those controlling such industry or industries concerned have expressed their desire to come under the provisions of the Bill." Moving the amendment Mr Forbes said he had not done so in a desire to prolong the debate, but to put on record what '.he Opposition considered a wise method of dealing with the Bill. "I do not recall in my long experience in this House an instance where a Bill of such magnitude has been taken direct into the secondreading stage without .. preliminary examination by a committee of the House." said Mr Forbes. The amendment had the effect of throwing the whole debate open again and from that time onwards members, were speaking to the amendment and not on the second reading of the Bill. The contention that the Bill as it now stood would by no means engender the necessary feeling of security in industry in, the Dominion was made by Mr W. A. Bodkin (Opposition, Central Otago) Mr Bodkin was speaking in support of the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition that the Bill should be referred back to the Government. Mr Bodkin said that at first sight the Bill purported to be an empowering measure, but an analysis of its provisions clearly showed that in actual effect it was a very restrictive measure. It could not be disputed that there was .need for reorganisation in many industries, but the Minister should know that he could not attempt to reorganise all the industrial activity of the Dominion without at first securing the goodwill of the people in the industries. If he hoped to get anything like results from the measure he would need that co-operation, but as the Bill was constructed he could not get that. - • The Minister: Will the honourable member support the Bill on the basis of an agreement secured among industries. ' '. •■ Mr Bodkin: I would support the Bill if reconstructed and if provision were included, for a free vote of the industry affected on the question of its entry into the scheme. "This Bill would be complete if it had the insignia of the hammer and sickle on it," said Mr W. J. Broadfoot (Opposition, Waitomo). Mr Broadfoot strongly criticised the whole measure, 'claiming that one of its worst effects would be to stifle the small men in business. "Who asked for this measure in any case? Mr Broadfoot queried. Mr T. H. M'Combs (Govt., Lyttelton): The manufacturers. Mr Broadfoot: Ah, now the cat is out of the bag. Mr Broadfoot suggested that the manufacturers of the Dominion had asked for, the Bill because of the difficulties they were presented wi<h by the effects of .the legislation of the Government, including rising costs. They apparently looked on the Bill as one way out. The amendment was defeated by 42 votes to 17.