NO UNDUE HASTE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19130, 26 September 1936, Page 5

NO UNDUE HASTE

PRIME MINISTER'S PLEDGE MEMBERS SCEPTICAL EXAMPLE FROM AMERICA WORKERS' COUNCIL PLAN (Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, this day. An emphatic declaration that the Industrial Efficiency Bill was not going to be sledge-hammered through the House was made by the Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. M. J. Savage, when the introduction of the bill was under consideration. Member after member had risen and plied the Minister of Industries and Commerce, the Hon. D. G. Sullivan, with questions, while the Prime Minister anxiously watched the hands of the clock moving towards the tune for the adjournment. When the Prime Minister had an opportunity to speak, he said it was quite evident to him that-an attempt was being made to talk until the adjournment so that the bill could not be introduced that day. There was strong Opposition dissent to this statement. Mr. Savage then declared in emphatic tones that the bill was not going to be sledge-hammered through the House. Twice subsequently, the Prime Minister repeated his declaration. Members and everyone affected by the bill, he said, would be given ample opportunity. Of considering it before it was passed, and if those affected by the bill did not want it, that would be the end of it. OPPOSITION ASSURANCE The Leader of the Opposition, the Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes, hastened to assure the Prime Minister that there was no intention whatever of holding up the bill. It was most important and farreaching, and he thought it might be a good thing to take the second reading and hold it over until next session. Immediately Mr. Forbes resumed his seat, the chairman of the committee, Mr. E. J. Howard, put the question and the bill was introduced and read a first, time. Earlier in the discussion, Mr. S. O. Holland (Nat., Christchurch North) said ho had listened to the Minister's explanation with the greatest interest. The proposals seemed to indicate something very much along the lines of the N.R.A. scheme in the United States, which had much to commend it. He believed that there was rooin for some co-operation between the State and private enterprise so long as it was reasonably applied. In that connection, there was a great deal of misunderstanding as to what rationalisation meant. "SORT OF STRAIT JACKET" Manufacturers in Wellington, he added, had some very advanced ideas which went a good deal further than those of some of the constituent associations. The bill was very experimental, but where the best interests of industry were concerned, co-operation would come from the Opposition 100 per cent. Mr. W. J. Broadfoot (Nat., Waitomo) said it was possible that the bill might have a tendency to create monopolies. He was afraid that private enterprise was going to be put in some sort of a strait-jacket.

Mr. W. J. Poison (Nat., Stratford) said he was not sure that manufacturers would' appreciate what was coming to them. It might mean joint control of industry by workers and employers by means of a workers' council. GOVERNMENT OFFICERS

The Minister of Industries replied that the principles of the bill had been very carefully and very clearly explained to the manufacturers. They had passed a resolution approving of the principles, but they were not satisfied that the Bureau of Industry should consist entirely of Government representatives. To meet that objection, he was making provision for both manufacturers and workers engaged in industry to be present when plans affecting their particular industry were being dealt with by the bureau. All the permanent officers of the bureau would be Govern ment officers. Mr. Broadfoot: Oh, Lord!

The Minister said he understood that was the viewpoint of the previous Government in connection with the scheme it was considering. Any plan would have to come back to the Minister and the Government for final consideration before being put into effect. The question of time had been raised by Mr. Holland, said the Minister. Before the second reading, several days would elapse, and between the second reading and the committee stages there would be a further interval.

Mr. H. Atmore (Ind., Nelson) remarked that he was not unfriendly, but the bill looked like syndicalism, and was so far-reaching that the Government would be well advised to postpone it until next session. It was too farreaching to be brought in within three weeks or a month of the end of the session.