STRONG PROTESTS

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19139, 7 October 1936, Page 9

STRONG PROTESTS

INDUSTRY CONTROL BILL SECOND READING DEBATE ATTACK 15V OiTOSITH L\ “HALF-BAKED SOCIALISM’' (Par Tress Association.) WELLIN'f!TON, last night.

The second reading of the Indus trial Eftieienev Bill was resumed it the House yesterday.

Mr. .1. Largest (Nat.. A wanin') said he did ant think the Government had any right to come along at this stage and coerce all business people in the Dominion to submit the whole of their plans .and business undertakings to the jurisdiction of a bureau which might, or might not, lie competent and most likely was not competent. Had the bill been promoted by a Government with other ideals, he might have been prepared to support it. The Minister and his party had been interested in industry for many years, but only front one point —that of the man earning wages frijm industry. That made pop It* somewhat perturbed as to what the result of the legislation such as that before the House would be. Was it. he asked, the intention of the Government, not only to socialise industry, but to lake control of it amt hand that control to the workers in the industry' 1

The Hon. If. G. R. 'Mason congratulated the .Minister on having attempted to solve the problem of the commercialisation of industry. He believed a bill of that sort in New Zealand would meet with more success than in older countries where conditions were more firmly established. Industry hail had a severe time (luring the depression, and unrestricted competition had not proved its salvation. The results nj' unrestricted competition were not so glorious as some people might think, lie likened trie position of industry to the difference between an army and an inglorious mob. There must be some organisation and some aim and tin* need for the bill was long overdue, lie hoped members of the Opposition would help to improve the bill rather than raise irrational objections to which the House was used. “TRUE PATRIOTISM” The purpose of the bill was to enable industry to do what it really wished to do, he said. The bill would be favourable whore there was an opening for a new industry, but it would be unfavourable where there was already a surplus of units in industry. The bill contemplated compensation where industry was adversely affected, and he thought that any benefit received by one section of industry should be used to indemnify those who suffered. No longer could there be any waste .and confusion in dust ry and the job must be tackled, and he was glad to see the Minister was I tickling the work - , which was a work of true patriotism, because it was a work to increase etiicieney and. therefore, the self-respect of the Dominion.

The lion. A. Hamilton (Mat., Wallace) said the bill did not. face up la any problem. It faced thin air; it did not deal with any problem. ft was the most indefinite bill he had ever seen introduced into the Mouse. Tin 1 bill set up a. board of about l(i members and gave power to levy on industry to pay their expenses. Everything after that was “may” and “if.” He said the trouble with the present. Government was that it could see nothing right in anything that had been done in the past. The bill did not take control of or deal with one industry. lie thought the bill should be scrapped and substituted by one that had a definite purpose. It was wrong, he contended, to pass legislation that hung over the heads of everybody and they did not know when it. was going to operate. He di<l not believe the Minister intended to use the powers given in* the bill, and it was a bill that did not, do credit to the Minister to introduce. There was a danger in licensing industries, for it would tend to create monopolies. Mr. Cl. 11. Burnett (Lab., Tnuranga) said it was a great pity they did not have the bill go or 40 vears ago. Jf they had had it, millions of pounds would have been saved to the people who had put their money into all sorts of wild-cat schemes. Mil. COATES’ CRITICISM The lit. lion. J. (!. Coates (Nat,., Kaipnva) said that nobody knew how far the liill might go or how it wan going to work. It provided lor the regimentation of industry and would not work. It would mean increased costs and ineilieiency and the public would not lie served as well as they were being served at present, lie'said that, as'a direct result of the .Minister’s administration of the wheat and Hour situation, the price of bread had gone up Id to 2d a loaf. Manufacturers Were entitled to ask for what they wanted, but were they satisfied with the bill? The Hon. I). (!. Sullivan said that licensing had their concurrence; co-ordination had their concurrence; and Lite bureau had their concurrence, but they wanted to be consulted about the expansion of (be scheme. Mr. Coates said that lie bad been told that the Minister bad told manufacturers that, if they did not agree to the proposals in the bill, lie would socialise every industry in the country.

Mr. Sullivan : I hope tile linn, gentleman will accept my word that 1 said nothing of the kind. W’liat L did sav was Unit, if they did no! want tlie bill, that was all right Mr. (bales said the bill meant, a bureaucracy tiial the country bad never dreamed of before. Il was carrying legislation far beyond anv conception that had been (bought of previously. The bill seemed to be the outcome of requests of which I lie (lovermiieiit ilseli had no very clear idea. The progress that had been made bv New Zealand had never been made by Government leadership Inn by private enterprise.' The hill, lie said, was absolutely wrong. The course that should have been, followed was Mini, if a particular set of circumstances arose a, hill should hr passed to deal with I hose ciivninslnneos. ' BILL MITT UK RIGHT”

Mr. R. Roberts (l.uh., Mastcilon) thought the bill must he on I lie right lines, because leading members of llie

Opposition had opposed it-. The bill was a. step towards rationalisation, and the aim the Government bad in view was service to the nation by co-ordination. It was the Government’s aim to plan in an intelligent way all the industrial organisation, so that the best results could bo achieved, and it- would lie a great help to the Minister of Finance in negotiating a trade agreement with Britain.

The lit. Hon. d. G. Oobbe (Nat.. Oi'oua) said the bill seemed to he an attempt to give the Minister of Industries and Commerce control of practically all Hie business of the Dominion. The bill was the first steji to bring the Soviet system into operation in New Zealand. The measure was designed, to include I lie. farming industry, which had already been hit. by the Government's legislation. The inti-ntion of the measure miglil be good, bn! it was a luisly, ill-eoneei ted and rash experiment. The measure was 100 far-reaching to lie. rushed through and he suggested that, file Government should hold it over fill if was fiiriher examined.

Mr. 11. M. Christie (Lab.. Wnipawa) said the Minister had no intention of interfering in business where lie could avoid il. llis hands were already full, and he was not looking for 'unnecessary work. He showed how the regulation had brought order into the transport, service and said the same could be achieved in industry. New Zealand’s produce was increasing in value because of war preparations and it was becoming increasingly diilioiilt, for any business lo stand alone and in Britain, where the conditions were also very ditiicult, there was H demand for control and the regulation of business. The hill would protect not only those who were likely to put Heir money into unsound businesses, bu: would, protect the people of New Zealand us a whole, because uneconomic businesses must react on 1 1 io people of New Zealand: generally. “COMPLETE .SOMERSAULT” Mr. •). Thorn (Lab.. Thames) said the bureau in a democratic, country like New Zealand could lpt afford to lie dictatorial, when. implications for licenses wore being eorsidered. lie said llie bureau would be atiendable to public opinion. He supposed the bill because unregulated systems made it extremely ditiicult for initially to bear the strain of modern conditions. Blind and haphazard metliols not only hindered the development of the country’s resources hut involver many investors in considerable losses and were, therefore. cruel and wasteful. His second ground for support w;s that individual and unrestricted competition was hard to direct- towards aims likely to serve the common good aid it might easily conflict with public pjliey and national interests. A third grouid was that political reactions from ;i condition of industry bordering on instability and chaos might very will prejudice the well-being of many jeople. lA fourth ground was that the modern economic situation was competing nearly every civilised nation to ncJpt more or less tho principles embodied in the bill.

Mr. S. 0. Smith 'Nat., New Plymouth) agreed that till bill would mean the elimination of thi small businessmen. He said the. Government had turned a complete soniirsaull. The principles expressed in Ihi bill were absolutely opposed to i hoc expounded by (he. Labour Party frob their seals in the House and during he election campaign. The Govonimenj was setting up a bureau of industry Ivliicb was only a board, lie claimed hat (he scheme the Government was inpporting was destroying co-operation;in industry. Jf the bill went throng! New Zealand would have a mixture if Russian philosophy and half bake,) roeialism. No one could prediet, that would happen if the (Invernmen! remained in power after the next ejclinn-. Eirsl of nil, I here, was llio cliilinnt ion of the small man. in thot lull, 'he Government, would then concent late n the big mall and the time would tliej he ripe lor a

Socialistic Government ti walk in and fake control of indiislrviTliaf was. Hie very danger in that hill, lie urged the Prime Minister to visit .iislralia to see what failures Stale enlerjHses had been there before tho present!liill was put through. He laid little object ion In licensing and thought thaiimder certain circumstances, it might hi beneficial to industry, hut his objcct-m was that licenses were to be granteiihy a bureau, not the Minister, The debate was adjomni).