PROTESTS CONTINUE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19140, 8 October 1936, Page 11

PROTESTS CONTINUE

THE EFFICIENCY BILL CONTROL OF INDUSTRY DEBATE TN THE HOUSE (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, last night, The second reading debate on the Industrial Efficiency Bill was resumed in the House by 'Mr. L. 0. Lowry (Labour, Otaki), who said that remarks about Russian philosophy had been made by the Opposition speakers., but- he thought much could be., learned from Russia. New Zealand had strong competitors in the world's market in Denmark, Australia, and other, countries, and the only alternative to organising and maintaining primary production was to encourage immigration to augment the secondary industries, but that should not be done* until the. secondary industries were properly organised. lie said that if New Zealand desired to maintain Iter entity she must not take the line of least resistance, but must fit herself to play her part in the battle for the world's markets.

MY. W. P. Ehxlcan (Nat.. I'arnell). said that New Zealand was built, up by private enterprise, and lie predicted that before very long she would return to private enterprise. The bill, he said, would prevent capital coming into New Zealand, and'would also restrict immigration. He said it was a principle of British justice that people whose rights were taken away should be compensated.

The Hon. D. G. Sullivan: I have already stated that if a person is put out of business, the people wlw benefit should compensate him. That is part of tin; plan. Mr. Endean asked the Minister to indicate the proportion of business in New Zealand that required to be put in order. "LEAD TO STAGNATION" Mr. 11. G. Dickie. (Nat., Pa tea) urged that further Lime should be given for members and ohers to consider the bill. He said that if the Government gave 100 per cent support to an industry, and it got into difficulties the Government might have to come in and save their owii people from destruction. Certain risks bad to be taken in establishing a business, and if they had not- been taken New Zealaifd would not have the large businesses she had to-day, but the Bureau of Industry would play safe and would not allow risks to be taken. He suggested that no member of the bureau should be allowed to hold shares in any business, because they would not want any suspicion of graft. The bill was not needed and would lead to stagnation in many industries.

The lit. Hon. G. W. Forbes expressed surprise at the bill being put through in the dying hours of the session. The Minister had discussed the bill with certain groups of manufacturers, but there were a great many individuals who had not considered the matter and did not realise what the results of the bill would be. Some Ministers wanted to see socialism ruling immediately in New Zealand, but he said it would be many years before that happened. He claimed thai those engaged in industry should be allowed to do their own planning and not have to leave it to some outside person. Civil servants were well trained in running their own businesses, but they had not had the industrial training which would enable them to say whether a new industry should be started or not. He moved an amendment to the effect that the bill be referred back to the Government for the purpose of reconstruction. '•DOING A GREAT WRONG." Mr. C. A. Wilkinson (Nat. Egmont) seconded the amendment. He said the. bill affected vitally fens of thousands of people, and was extremely wide in its application. He believed the Minister had brought the bill forward with the best of intentions, but he was mistaken and should take evidence from those, concerned before doing a great wrong to enterprising people. It would put industry in a straitjacket.

Mr. W. A. Bodkin (Nat, C. Otago). «aid that if the Minister wished to reorganise industry he must know lie could not do so unless he iirst secured the confidence and goodwill of industry. All the bill did was to .secure Slate control of industry under a board.

Mr W. .T. Broadfoot (Nat. Waitomo) said that manufacturers might be in favour of the bill or they might not. Tt might be just a little coterie of manufacturers in Wellington, Dunedin, Ohristchurch and Auckland who favoured it, but ho did not think that the .lanufacturers as a whole wanted it. Anyway, the manufacturers were only i small section of the community, i'herc might be benefits in the bill, ■ut they had to beware of ovcruti.onalisation of industry. Mr. Broadfoot believed the Government would do well advised to follow ite lead given by Great Britain in regard to lier industries. MANUFACTURERS' PROTEST. Mr. H. S. S. Kyle (Nat. Riccarton) said that when he was in Australia he told the people there to beware of what was being done in New Zealand and that New Zealand was a good country to keep out of at the present time.

The. Hon. D. G. Sullivan: And are you proud of that? Mr. Kyle: 'Yes," just, as proud as the Minister is of his bill. Mr. Kyle said he' could not sC' capital coming to New Zealand wit!' such a measure on the Statute Book. Mr. W. J. Poison .(Nat.-Stratfrnd) said that at first, before- 'the- Teal significance of the bill became apparent, to rnem, some manufacturersunproved the \ proposals, but, later. -'hen they saw the bill, they opposed The Rt. Hon. M. J. Savage: They haven't said so to me.

Mr. Poison said that he was informed that the Minister had received 'a telegram from a meeting of lOC manufacturers in Auckland opposing the bili and a meeting of manufacturers in Dunedin adopted the same attitude. The bill gave the Minister power to take control of the farming industry. • But could anyone imagine the Minister and half a dozen civil servants telling (he farmer when he should farm, what ho should farm, and how he should farm.

The amendment was lost by 42 to 17 and the debate was adjourned.