PERSONNEL OF BUREAU

Southland Times, Issue 23026, 21 October 1936, Page 6

PERSONNEL OF BUREAU

NUMBER OF ORDINARY MEMBERS ATTEMPT TO ENSURE LIMITATION (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) Wellington, October 20. An attempt to limit the number of ordinary members of the Bureau of Industry was made in the committee stages of the Industrial Efficiency Bill in the House of Representatives tonight. An amendment moved to Clause 3 by Mr W. J. Polson (Nat., Stratford) with that object was defeated and the discussion on the clause was terminated by the application of the closure. Mr Polson said that he considered there should be only six ordinary members of the bureau, so that special members recruited from industries < would not be outweighed by a lot of handpicked civil servants.” By the very nature of their training, civil servants would be opposed to any element of risk or speculation, which entered into all industries, especially when they were starting. It would be possible, therefore, that the chances of an industry might be prejudiced, simply because of the preponderance of civil servants. He would sooner see a bureau with an industrialist complex than a civil servant complex. “The manufacturers look on the members of the bureau as friends, not as enemies,” said the Minister of Industries and Commerce (the Hon. D G. Sullivan). “At the point where they were given representation on _ the bureau they removed their opposition. They were also glad that the industrial committee, as a body to originate plans for industry, was eliminated. It is possible that when appointing special members to the bureau, we may be able to secure the services of men who have had experience, but -are now not actually engaged in industry.” Mr Polson: Will they be representatives of industries? The Minister: Yes. Six a Suitable Number. Mr H. S. S. Kyle (Nat., Riccarton), expressed the opinion that six ordinaly members of the bureau would be a suitable number. The Minister: There are more likely to be five than six. Mr Kyle: Then why not accept the amendment? I The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates (Nat., Kaipara), said that the Bill, as it stood,! allowed the Minister _to appoint as many members as he liked on the Government side, and under clause 5 he could appoint a special spy as well. Mr Polson: Don’t be too hard, or the Prime Minister will move the closure. “I don’t care,” said Mr Coates. “Free speech has gone from this House now. In my opinion the closure is moved without proper consideration.” A moment later, to the accompaniment of laughter and cries of “The gag! The gag!” from the Opposition, the Prime Minister (the Rt. Hon.. M. J. Savage) moved the closure, which was carried by 38 votes to 16. Mr Polson’s amendment was lost by 40 votes to 16 and a further amendment moved by Mr S. G. Holland (Nat., Christchurch North) to limit the appointment of members of the bureau to three years was lost by 40 votes to 15. On a further division the clause was retained by 40 votes to 16. Appointment of Chairman. “A more hidebound Tory clause never appeared in any Bill,” declared Mr R. A. Wright (Ind., Wellington Suburbs), in referring to Clause 4, which authorizes the Minister to appoint a chairman and a deputy-chairman of the bureau. “Surely members of the bureau can be trusted to appoint their own chairman. The only deduction one can draw from this clause is that the bureau is going to be a puppet in the hands of the Minister.” Mr Sullivan said that it was essential that the Minister should be certain he had a man, who was most competent to discharge the duties of chairman. Mr Polson said that the Minister was not prepared to allow the men whom he himself had appointed to the bureau to elect their own chairman. The clause was an insult to the members of the bureau. After other Opposition members had spoken, the Prime Minister again moved the closure. His motion was carried by 39 votes to 16 and the clause was carried on the voices.