The Waipawa Mail. MONDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1937. INDUSTRIAL EFFICIENCY ACT.

Waipawa Mail, Volume LXVI, Issue 9, 4 October 1937, Page 2

The Waipawa Mail. MONDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1937. INDUSTRIAL EFFICIENCY ACT.

JN defending the Industrial Efficiency Act in the House of Representatives recently the Minister of Industries and Commerce claimed that it was one of the most progressive and certainly one of the most democratic measures enacted in New Zealand. It was impossible to apply any plan for the control of an industry under that Act without the consent of the majority of the units in the industry involved. Mr Sullivan declared also that the Government was applying the principle of cooperation and consultation. On this latter claim we cannot comment, for little is known publicly of the procedure under the Act. But the contention that the Act itself is so highly democratic is much open to question. It is true that an industrial plan is required to have the approval of the majority in the industry; but amending or revoking regulations may be issued without this approval. This proviso could be used to alter the effect of the original plan. Thus the Minister, on whose recommendation the amending regulations might he issued, has over-riding powers. Further, licensing can he applied to an industry on the decision of the Minister. For this power, which may be as far-reaching as any approved plan, the Minister does not depend on the consent of a majority in the industry 7. •

There are these over-riding powers in the Act; and if a Minister or Government with dictatorial leanings chooses to exercise them a check cannot be quickly applied by Parliament or any other authority. But there is a further flaw in the alleged democratic basis of the legislation. A bare majority either of principals engaged in an industry or of persons employing a majority of workers in an industry may force a plan upon a substantial minority. Further, such a plan or a licensing scheme may restrict or even remove the rights of other persons to engage in that industry. There is the possibility of an industry being made a close preserve for those already in it. We know that the Bureau or other licensing authority is required 'to consider a great numbers of matters (from (a) to (n) in Section 16 of the Act), but those who have studied the operation of similar monopoly-creating licensing plans state that they are charged with all the dangers of monopoly. Any form of control, in substitution for competition, tends to create monopolistic vested interests and is the reverse of democratic. The public are deprived of the safeguard of free competition and given something untested and experimental.