PROVISION FOR COMPULSION

Southland Times, Issue 24548, 24 September 1941, Page 6

PROVISION FOR COMPULSION

OPPOSITION RAISES OBJECTION DEBATE ON STANDARDS BILL (Special) WELLINGTON, Sept. 24. Fourteen Opposition and Government speakers took part in the debate on the principles of the Standards Bill in the House of Representatives today. A full day was devoted to the debate on the motion for committal of the Bill to a committee of the House as a whole. The main theme of the Opposition's objections to the Bill was its compulsory provisions. The debate was not finished when the House rose. Mr J. Hodgens (Lab., Palmerston North) said that the system as set out in the Bill was necessary and desirable, and a compulsory standard would stop the exploitation of consumers. Mr Hodgens produced two tins which he said contained a commodity of a wellknown brand. The first tin was in use by a firm when the Price Tribunal fixed the price of it, but the firm had then raised the bottom of the tin by about half an inch, reducing the quantity of the contents. Although in appearance the container was the same size, such practices would be stopped by the adoption of compulsory standards. Mr Hodgens also exhibited a bundle of charred material which he said was an electric bed warmer which had caught fire because it was of a poor standard. Elderly persons or invalids might be burned to death as a result of such poor workmanship. STANDARDIZATION OF MEAT Exception to the dictatorial powers conferred on the Minister by the Bill was taken by Mr W. S. Goosman (Nat., Waikato). He said he was not opposed to the introduction of standards, but he wanted included in the measure the right of appeal to the Court and not to the Minister. He could visualize the possibility of an entire factory being put out of business and the economic life of the community being further disorganized. Mr Goosman dealt particularly with the standardization of meat and asked whether it would take place on the hoof or on the hook. Mr W. T. Anderton (Lab., Eden): On the scales.

Mr Goosman suggested that the Bill might be a concealed effort to do away with livestock sales. The Hon. D. G. Sullivan: Rubbish. Mr Goosman said he was certain that if the Government applied the Bill to the standardization of meat there would be serious disruption. It was not possible to educate everyone simultaneously in the need for reforms, said Mr C. Carr (Lab., Timaru). Leadership was necessary, and if those providing leadership had the confidence of the people as the present Government had, they were justified in using compulsion to introduce reforms. Mr W. J. Polson (Nat., Stratford): What is the need for compulsion if you have that confidence?

Standards could not be made effective without compulsion, said Mr Carr. In industry the dominating motive was to secure profits, and if profits were secured by selling an inferior article or an article that rapidly went out of fashion, that was uneconomic. STAGNATION FEARED Mr H. G. Dickie (Nat., Patea) suggested that women’s organizations should be invited to nominate two women to the Standards Council and that other members should be nominated. The Minister: I promised them at the committee that I would accept nominations. Too much regimentation meant stagnation, continued Mr Dickie. He had no objections to standards, but he thought they should be voluntary. Stressing the need for standardization, Mr A. S. Richards (Lab., Roskill) produced a pair of women’s shoes which could not be repaired after three weeks’ Wear, the insoles being of paper and cardboard. So long as the motive of profit was behind production, the measure was needed. Mr Polson said that the Opposition was not against standards, but was against compulsion, which was unnecessary in New Zealand, where standards were already high. The Government was going ahead one step at a time with its plan for regimentation and socialization.

Mr W. M. C. Denham (Lab., Inver-, cargill) said that the only criticism he had to offer was that the Bill did not go far enough. It took some steps, however, to protect the public.

“STRAITJACKET ON INDUSTRY” Mr W. J. Broadfoot (Nat., Waitomo) considered that the Bill was a first cousin to the Industrial Efficiency Act and was another straitjacket on industry. Who, he asked, would put capital into a business that had been granted a licence for only one year, as was proposed in the Bill? It was unfair and unreasonable to expect anyone to do so. The Attorney-General (the Hon. H. G. R. Mason), replying to Opposition criticism of the compulsion clause of the Bill, said that under the existing law there was provision for compulsory standardization as, for example, standardization of fruit case and butter box sizes. He wondered what the Opposition was becoming excited about. Sensible administrators tried to administer this type of law in the interests of all concerned. It had to be assumed that such laws were passed to be wisely used. The power of compulsion was necessary for enforcement of the law and the protection of the public. Mr C. G. E. Harker (Nat., Waipawa) emphasized that the Opposition’s criticism had been looked upon by the Government Party in a party spirit when it was intended by the Opposition to be constructive and helpful. The Opposition was not opposed to the Bill in principle, but to certain aspects of its application. PRINCIPLE SUPPORTED “We agree on the principle of this Bill and we are not going to stop the meagre or try to stop it,” said the Leader of the Opposition (Mr S. G. Holland), who was the last speaker tonight. “When I say we agree with the principle of standardization I want to make it clear that when we see anything that smacks of dictation we must, because we believe in the principle of freedom, raise our voices.” Mr Hodgens: Freedom for what? Fraud? Mr Holland: Certainly not. Neither this side of the House nor the other believes in freedom for fraud. Mr Holland recalled that Mr Hodgens earlier had shown a defective bed warmer as an example of the need for standards. He said that this same bed warmer had been hawked round for years as a terrible example. He also criticized the point made by Mr Hodgens when he produced two tins. Mr Holland said that the tins were certainly different in size, but the method of packing was different; there was less paper in the smaller tin. Another example quoted from the Government benches, that of a defective electric light bulb, was not a good example as the bulb was not made in New Zealand. Mr Holland vigorously defended New Zealand industry. He said that members should be more careful in such a debate lest they give a false impres-

sion that the cases they quoted were accepted as typical. In fact, the only people who needed checking were a few black sheep of industry. Mr Sullivan: It is only the black sheep that were mentioned. Mr Holland said that the Opposition welcomed the Bill on standards and its criticism was designed not to impede the Bill, but to improve it.