STATE CONTROL

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19135, 2 October 1936, Page 8

STATE CONTROL

INDUSTRIES OF DOMINION MEASURE UNDER FIRE DEFENCE BY MINISTER. NERD FOR RATIONALISATION (Par Press Association.) WELLINGTON, last night. Urgency was accorded the second reading of the industrial Efficiency Bill in the House of Representatives to-night. The Hon. I), G. Sullivan, in moving the second reading, said the bill was desirable in the interests of the country unless they were to shut their eyes (o what had existed in the past, and to neglect the utilisation of the natural resources of the country. Had he not, brought the measure forward, a similar measure for the preservation of industries would have been necessary in future. The Minister said he had been told by a reliable person that there were far more coal mines in New Zealand than the requirements of the Dominion justified, and the Government had had no control over the opening up of new mine* on freehold property, and the industry had become over-capitalised. It was urged that, the future of the industry should be controlled. It-was not the only industry that suffered from lack of coordination, 'the flax industry was another, and he was making an effort to rejuvenate that industry, so that if could pluv the part it ought to play in the economic development of the-Dominion. There was a widespread tendency throughout the world to introduce phases of a measure often involving co-ordina-tion and often involving licensing, but all involving substantial control of industry, to prevent over-capitalisation. The newspapers had taken a fair view of the bill and had given it. some measure of support. He was. pleased that the manufacturers were giving general support to the bill. SURVIVAL OP THE FITTEST .Mr. W. J. J'olson (Nat,, Stratford): Are they asking for licensing? Mr. Sullivan : Yes. The Minister went on to say that he had received an intimation that manufacturers generally approved the bill, including licensing and co-ordination. There were some amendments they would like, and to some degree he had endeavoured to meet them, regarding representation on the Bureau of Industry. The whole ol the manufacturers did not support the bill, but he thought that three-fourths of the' organised manufacturers approved the bill.

In the main, continued the Minister, the issue was whether they were to have a survival of the fittest, 'free cut-throat competition, and the law of the jungle, or whether they were to have organisation, ordered industrial life, and the application of the best principles of civilisation to the conduct of industry, and people throughout flic world were living upon that issue. So far as trade unionists were concerned, they had settled flic issue for themselves long ago.

To-day there was a surplus'number of competing units and cut-throat competition, and week after week lie had I people from industry after industry, business after business, and service after service in his office asking for something better, asking for co-ordination and cooperation, asking for the opportunity of conducting their business 1 on the principle that would enable them to get some happiness out of life, and put an end to the desperate daily cut-throat competition in which they are involved, and in anticipation of the present bill or a similar bill they had set about the task of preparing their efficiency schemes UNDER STATE PARENTAGE The bill, lie said, was intended to produce organisation between all sections manufacturers, workers, and consumers—for the good of the industry, and under the parentage and guidance of the State. If it were necessary for industries to have tariff protection and subsidies, and assistance from the State, it was equally justifiable, and quite fight and proper," that the Slate should exercise supervision over the development of those industries. ' • It was rot intended to start rationalising ail industries at once, and keep the Bureau of Industry working day and night. His idea was to take one industry which was ripe for rationalisation, and set the machinery in motion,

and then take one industry at a time

As they went along they would gain experience as to what was the most effective, way of working. If they endeavoured to deal with many industries

at once they would get into difficulties. Mr. S. G. Holland (Nat., Chch. N.I said that, although Mr. Sullivan had spoken for 2| hours he was still thirsting for knowledge. He said the bili savoured of the 'Soviet system, though private ownership remained. The task the Minister had tackled was one ol extreme difficulty and great complexity. lie thought the*bill was too dangerous to proceed. Traders and manufacturers had turned to the Government, for some form of relief from the problems that faced them and a desire for some form of control was expressed, as it was thought, that it would rid manufacturers of some of their problems. He believed that many of the allegations of inefficiency were unjustified. He said that they were often made by those who had not full knowledge of the position. RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS

He considered that industry in New Zealand was reasonably efficient, but there was still room for improvement. He was in complete agreement with several provisions of the bill and believed a bureau cculd be of great service to industry by co.-operating with the Department of Industrial and Scientific Research and passing along the information .it received to manufacturers, lie said that a .bureau that functioned in an advisory capacity would be welcomed by all manufacturers, but that was a different matter.

He strongly opposed handing over the industries of New Zealand, whether primary or secondary, to a bureau composed of civil servants. He believed that with a little strengthening of the present system industry would be able to survive and prosper. If socialism of industry failed, private enterprise had to hear the loss, and if it succeeded the scheme would be definitely limited as to the amount of production, the type

of goods produced and the profits to be made.

Mr. Holland said the 'bill did not respect the right of private individuals. The bill was vague in many respects and it was also indefinite. He claimed' that the secondary industries should receive more support and said that while .S:700,COO had 'been spent on the agricultural industries, the secondary industries had had only £2B,CCO spent on them. IMITATION OF GERMANY Mr. T. H. McCombs (Lab., Lyttelton) said the function of the Bureau of In-

dustry would be to lay down a plan that industry was to follow and would then leave it to work out the details for itself. He said that, in the past, industry had decided to deal with them as a whole, and the bill before the House was the result, He referred to the way the dairy industry had been rationalised and said'the same could be done- in other industries. Mr. Poison said the responsibility <>' the Government was not merely,to sonic particular industry, but to the people who had created the. opportunity for the industry. What, he asked, would an avowedly socialistic Government do with the great powers given in the bill'' lie believed a greater measure of cooperation could be brought about with benefit to industry. Government officials on a bureau would be entirely under the thumb of the Minister and they would know nothing about industry. He criticised the proposal to make levies without the authority of Parliament and said it amounted to extra taxation imposed without the knowledge or consent of Parliament. He said the powers taken by the Government under the bill were greater than those taken by any other country. The legislation was not a bad imitation of the German plan. The proposals were not, new, but had been tried out in Britain in the times of the Tudors and their successors. There were powers in the bill that would have serious consequences in industry and there were powers that would stifle Tree competition. It was nationalisation of industry, not rationalisation. The hill, lie w-as'afraid, might lead to chaos. The* country would need a Cromwell to save it. It was a tragedy, and the results would not be what the Government expect eel. DANGER OF COMPETITION

Mr. C. M. Williams' (Lab., Kaiapoi) said New Zealand still had the problem of unemployment before it and the bill, in company with other legislation that had been passed, would assist industry and develop new industries. Ho reminded Mr. Poison that the previous Government gave dairy control and the [lower to make a levy on the dairy industry. It was the extreme competition that, led to inefficiency. Ho referred .to Hit efforts in Britain to organise industry. He admitted that the bill would be dangerous if administered by certain people, but it would not be dangerous in the way the Labour Party would administer it, The bill protected business people against ill-conceived and unfair competition. He opposed the postponement of the bill as it would give the Minister an opportunity to do much good work in nationalising industry during the recess.

Sir Alfred Ransom (Nat., Pahialua) said ho regarded the bill as one of the most dangerous enactments ever submitted to the House, and one calculated to do a great deal of harm to the secondary industries. He claimed that little attention could be paid to the opinions of newspapers and manufacturers. As the bill had been before the House only r few days, neither members nor others had been" able to digest its provisions and, later, when the provisions were fully known, they would get the true opinions of those who would be affected by the measure. The measure was so far-reaching in its effects that members should have an ample opportunity of expressing their opinions upon it. The debate was adjourned.