CONTROL OF INDUSTRY

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 237, 7 October 1936, Page 8

CONTROL OF INDUSTRY

BILL BEFORE HOUSE J I i GOVERNMENT’S PROPOSALS ‘ c £ i OPPOSITION CRITICISM 1 ( [Per Press Association] ( WELLINGTON, Oct. 6. ' The second reading of the Industrial Efficiency Bill was resumed in the House of Representatives this afternoon. - Colonel J. Hargest (Opp., AwaruaL .' said he did not tnink the Government . had any right to come along at this stage and coerce all business people * in the Dominion to submit the whole ‘ of their plans and business undertakings to the jurisdiction of the bureau, ( which might or might not be compe. . tent and most likely not competent. Had the Bill been promoted by a , Government with other ideals he . might have been prepared to support it. The Minister and his party had been interested in industry for many ( years but only from one side —that ct the man earning wages from indus- * try. That made people somew hat perturbed as to what the result ol . legislation such as that before the , House would be. Was it, he asked. " the intention of the Government rot , only to socialise industry but take . control of it and hand that control to j the workers in industry? Hon. H. G. R. Mason congratulated * < the Minister of Industries and Com- i, merce with having attempted to solve the problem of the commercialisation j . of industry. He believed that a Bill i' cf that sort in New Zealand would ■ meet with more success than in older i countries where conditions were more I firmly established, industry had had | a severe time during the depression • and unrestricted competition had not i proved its salvation. r ihe results Oi ' unrestricted competition were not so j glorious as some people might think, j , He likened the position of industry To [ the difference between an army and ! an inglorious mob. There must be some organisation and some aim, and the need for the Bill was long overdue. He hoped that the members cf the Opposition would help to improve the Bill rather than raise irrational objections, to which the House was used. The purpose of the Bill was to enable industry to do what it really wished to do. The Bill would be favourable where there was an opening for a new industry but it would be unfavourable where there already was a surplus of units in industry. He thought the Bill contemplated I compensation where industry was ad- ! versely affected and thought that any benefit received by one section of in- , dus try should be used to indemnify i those* who suffered. No longer could j there be any waste and confusion in industry and the job must be tackled, j and he was glad to see that the Min- i ister was tackling the work, which i was a work of true patriotism because | it was a work to increase efficiency | and therefore the self-respect of the Dominion. Bill Most Indefinite. Hon. A. Hamilton (Opp., Wallace) said the Bill did not face up to any problem. It faced thin air. It did not deal with any problem and it was the most indefinite Bill he had ever seen introduced into the House. The Bill set up a board of about sixteen members and gave them power to levy on industry to pay their expenses. . Everything after tha’t was “may” and He said the trouble with the pres- i ent Government was they could see , nothing right in anything that had • been done in the past. The Bill did i not take control or deal with one in- ' dustry. He thought the Eill should • be scrapped and substituted by one < that had a definite purpose. It was | wrong, he contended, to pass legisla- ■ tion that hung over the heads of j everybody, and they did not know • when it was going to operate. He j did not believe the Minister intended ■ to use the power given in the Bill j and said it was a Bill that did not do ; credit to the Minister to introduce. > There was a danger in licensing in- i dustries. It tended to create monopo- j lies. Mr. C. H. Burnett (Govert.. Tauranga) said it was a great pity tha’ ; they did not have the Bill 30 or 4’.* ' years ago. If they had had it millions i of pounds would have been saved tn t people who had put their money into i all sorts of wild-cat schemes. Hon. J. G. Coates said that nobody , knew how far the Bill might go of , how it was going to work. It pro. i vided for the regimentation of indus- i trv and would not work. It would i mean increased costs and inefficiency • and the public would not be served . as well as it was being served at present. He said that as a direct re- I suit of the Minister's administration ■ of the wheat and flour situation ‘hr? price of bread had gone up a penny to twopence a loaf. Manufacturers were entitled to ask for what thewanted, but were they satisfied with the Bill? Hon. D. G. Sullivan said that licensing, co-ordination, and the bureau nan their concurrence, but they wanted to be consulted about the expansion of the scheme. Mr. Coates said he had been to.c i that the Minister told the manufacturers that if they did not agree ■ ■ the proposals in the Bill he wouln socialise every industry in the coun- : try. Mr. Sullivan: I hope the hon. gentieman will accept my word that 1 i said nothing of the kind. What I did ' say was that if they did not want the Bill that was all right. Mr. Coates said the Bill meant bureaucracy that the country had never dreamed of before. It was carrying .legislation far beyond any conception that had been thought of previously. The Bill seemed to be the outcome of requests of which the Government itself had no very clear idea. The progress that had been made by New Zealand had never been made by Government leadership but by private enterprise. The Bill, he said, was absolutely wrong. The course that should have been followed was that if a particular set of circumstances arose a Bill should be passed to deal with those circumstances. Mr. B. Roberts (Government, Wairarapa) thought the Bill must be on right lines because leading members of the Opposition had opposed it.

Towards Rationalisation. When the House resumed at 7.30 p.m. Mr. Roberts said the Bill was a step towards rationalisation and the aim the Government had in view was service to the nation by co-ordination. It was the Government’s aim to plan in an intelligent way all industrial organisation so that the best results could be achieved and it would be a great help to the Minister of Finance in negotiating a trade agreement with Britain. Hon. J. G. Cobbe (Opposition, Oroua) said the Bill seemed to be an attempt to give the Minister of Industries and Commerce control of practically all the business of the Dominion. The Bill was the first step to bring the Soviet system into operation in New Zealand. The measure was designed to include the farming industry, which had already been hit by the Government's legislation. The intention of the measure might be good but it was a hasty, ill-conceived and rash experiment. The measure was too far-reaching to be rushed through and he suggested that the Government should hold it over till it was further examined. Mr. H. M. Christie (Government, Waipawa) said the Minister had no intention of interfering in business where he could avoid it. His hands were already full and he was not looking for unnecessary work. He showed how regulation had brought order into the transport service and said the same could be achieved in industry. Mr. Christie said that New Zealand’s produce was increasing in value because of war preparations. It was becoming increasingly difficult for any business to stand alone and in Britain, where conditions were also very difficult, there was a demand for control and regulation of business. Tlie Bill would protect not only those who were likely to put their money into unsound businesses but would protect the people of New Zealand as a whole because uneconomic businesses must react on the people of New Zealand generally. Bill Impracticable. Mr. R. A. Wright (Independent, Wellington Suburbs) said the object of the Bill was to regulate prices and to prevent cut-throat competition, which people generally regarded as a very good thing. However, he did not believe it was worth the paper it was printed on. He said that when the bureau attempted to put it into operation it would break down under its own weight. The Bill would create rings and combines which would keep prices up. It really would put industry into a combine against the general public. If the Bill went into operation the day of the small man would be gone. The small man would be down and out. The Bill would prevent the small man getting a start and after all most big businesses toI c.ay nan miu.e very small beginnings. I r,ie whole thing was impracticable. ; Mr. J. Thorn (Govt. Thames) said i that the bureau, in a democratic country like New Zealand, could not I afford 'to be dictatorial when applicai lions for licenses were be.ng considered. He said the bureau would be amenable to public opinion. He supI ported the Bill because unregulated systems made it extremely difficult for industry to bear the strain oi modern conditions. Blind and hap- | hazard methods not only hindered the | development of the country s re- > sources but involved many investors ! in considerable losses and were there- | fore cruel and wasteful. His second I ground for support was that indij vidual unrestricted competition was hard to direct towards aims likely to serve tile common good and it might I easily conflict with public policy and national interests. His third, ground I was that political reactions from a condition of industry bordering on in- ! stability and chaos might very well I prejudice the wellbeing of many I people. His fourth ground was that the modern economic situation was ! compelling nearly every civffifc.d nation to adopt more or less the principles embodied in the Bill. I Mr. S. G. Smith (Opp. New Plymouth) agreed that the Bill would mean the elimination of the small businessman. He said the Government had turned a complete somersault. The principles expressed in the Bill were absolutely opposed to those expounded by the Labour Party from Ihe seats in the House and during the election campaign. He said the Government was setting up a bureau oi industry, which was only a board. He j claimed that the scheme the Govi ernment was supporting was destroyI ing co-operation in industry. He said I that if the Bill went through New I Zealand would have a mixture , of I Russian philosophy and half-baked i socialism. No one could predict what I would happen if the Government re- | mained in power after the next eleci tion. First of all there was the elimination of the small man in that I Bill. The Government would then I concentrate on the big man and time ! would then be ripe tor a socialistic I Government to walk in and take con- | trol of industry. That was the very danger in that Bill. He urged the Prime Minister to visit Australia to I see what failures the State enterprises had been there. Before the present Bill was put through he had little objection to licensing. He thought that under certain circumstances it might be beneficial to industry but his objection was that licences were to be granted by the bureau and not the Minister. The debate was adjourned and the House rose at 10.30 p.m.