DEFINITION OF INDUSTRY

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

DEFINITION OF INDUSTRY

ATTEMPTS TO NARROW SCOPE OPPOSITION’S EFFORTS FRUITLESS (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) Wellington, October 20. Efforts by Opposition members to narrow the scope of the Industrial Efficiency Bill were responsible for a frequent’ ringing of the division bells in the House of Representatives today, when the committee stages of the Bill’ were resumed. For about two hours the Opposition’s attack was concentrated on the definition of industry contained in the Bill, but the objections to its “blanketing” nature were unavailing. When the clause dealing with interpretations was under discussion, the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates moved an amendment designed to make the provisions of the Bill applicable only to manufacturing industries. As the Bill stood at present, he said, it could be made to hang over the head of every section of the community. All trades and occupations could be brought within its scope. , _ , . Mr E. F. Moncur (Lab., Rotorua): What about bookmakers? “The Member for Rotorua will know more about that than I do,” replied Mr Coates. “I must confess that it is some time since I have seen one of those interesting doubles charts.” “This Bill is a gift to the manufacturers,” said Mr W. J. Broadfoot (Nat., Waitomo). “Apparently it is their reward for the higher wages and shorter hours that they are called on to bear under the Government’s legislation. That being the case, the Bill„ should be restricted to manufacturers.” Mr W. A. Bodkin (Nat., Central Otago) said that the manufacturers appeared to be prepared to accept the principles of the Bill, but other sections of the industry were definitely opposed to it. There might be other isolated instances to which it could be applied with advantage, but general powers were dangerous. Position of Chemists. “If'this Bill is good for the manufacturing industries,” said the Minister of Industries and Commerce (the Hon. D. G. Sullivan), “it will be of even greater benefit to other industries. Foi instance, there is the position of the chemists. They were told some time ago to put their house in order and they have framed their own proposals with that end in view. They are a profession, and if the Bill were _to be confined to the manufacturing industries, chemists would be deprived of its provisions, which they need in order to organize their profession on a proper basis. The fishing industry is another which needs organization of the type proposed under this Bill. I have had countless requests from other industries and trades, asking for this legislation, and I have just been informed to-day that an eminent visitor to this country has stated that if the Bill is passed a British firm will be prepared to put £60,000 into one of our industries. The amendments which have been circulated may weaken the Bill in one direction, but they give industries a chance to approve of the various plans. Special legislation will be required to enforce a plan which is not endorsed by the industry concerned. Nothing could be more democratic than that.” In answer to a question by the Hon. J G. Cobbe (Nat., Oroua) the Minister said that the farming industries would not be brought under the legislation unless they made a specific request. Investigating Bodies. “As a result of arguments advanced from this side of the House, said Mr S. G. Smith (Nat., New Plymouth), “the Minister has seen fit to make the Bill acceptable to a few more people other than a section of the manufacturers. There has been no gratitude at all to the Opposition, which has saved the Minister, who is a new Minister, from landing himself in a mess. The last Government was blasted, blamed and castigated for setting up boards and other bodies with investigating powers. The Labour Party was swept into office on its condemnation of that system, and now it is turning round and using the system itself.” , -x, XU Mr Coates said that even with the amendments, there was still considerable opposition to the Bill. Even the manufacturers were not unanimous in their expressions of approval. It was clear that the manufacturers were getting to a point where, as a result of rising costs, they could not possibly compete with the imported article. The Bill, in that respect, was pure subterfuge. The manufacturers were asking for something which would mean increased tariffs, higher exchange or regulation of imports. The Hon. Adam Hamilton (Nat., Wallace) said that the sweeping nature of the definition of industry was one of the greatest weaknesses in the Bill. It made the Bill nothing but an empowering measure for the benefit of the Minister. Viscount Elibank’s Criticism. When Mr Coates was speaking again, a Government member referred to the criticism of the Bill expressed by Viscount Elibank, president of the Empire Chambers of Commerce. “Lord Elibank was quite entitled and well qualified to express an opinion, said Mr Coates. “The only thing to which exception could be taken was the whining attitude of the Minister in the face of criticism.” . At this stage the Prime Minister (the Rt. Hon. M. J. Savage) rose to move the closure. There were derisive shouts from the Opposition, and Mr Broadfoot cried: “That is how they like criticism.” . The closure motion was carried by 39 votes to 16, and immediately afterward Mr Coates’s amendment was lost by 41 votes to 16. A further amendment by Mr Hamilton seeking to exclude farming occupations from the definition of industry was also rejected by 41 votes to 16 and the clause was carried, on a division, by 39 votes to 16, four divisions having occurred, all within the space of half an hour.