INDUSTRIES BILL

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 247, 19 October 1936, Page 8

INDUSTRIES BILL

Lord Elibank’s Comment MINISTER’S REPLY VISITING DELEGATE’S VIEW I I’cr Press Associate )n ] INVERCARGILL, Oct. IS. Reference to the criticism by the Hon. D. G. Sullivan of Lord Elibank’s speech at Dunedin on the Industrial Efficiency Bill, was made yesterday by Mr. J. Arthur Aiton, ci Derby, leader of the party of Empire Chamber of Commerce delegates which is visiting Southland. “I thought Lord Elibank’s speech was a very able one and 1 consider that he was perfectly justified in making it,” said Mr. Aiton. “Before we came out here we decided to say what we thought. We would be wasting our time if we did not. We did not come to the congress to say only pleasing platitudes. If by saying straight from the shoulder what we thought we have offended someone, we are very sorry, but we did not come here to please people, exalted or otherwise. Lord Elibank made an excellent speech and I think he had every right to say what he thought.” Speaking at a dinner tendered to the overseas Chambers of Commerce delegates at Dunedin, Lord Elibank referred to the Prime Minister's statement at the State luncheon that New Zealand was looking for fresh capital for investment from overseas. As a result, delegates had been investigating conditions and searching for opportunities for the investment of such capital. The search had been a genuine and painstaking one, but he would like to point out that British capital was conservative and, although it was not afraid of taking risks, it asked for a square deal under conditions which it could understand. It did not expect to be taxed out of business as soon as it was invested. Having studied local conditions very closely, he had come to the conclusion that conditions were arising and legislation was being passed which British capital could not be expected to understand, and for that reason British capital was becoming very shy of New Zealand investments. In this Lord Elibank said he would like to state that he was speaking as an individual with a personal and active interest in New Zealand commerce. He was connected with two companies doing extensive business in New Zealand, and he felt he was entitled, without trespassing on any hospitality, to comment on a measure that was of the utmost importance to overseas capital. He referred to the Industrial Efficiency Bill. He believed that he was justified in the capacity he had described and in view of certain statements made by the Minister of Industries and Commerce in what he would say. A Right to Expression. The Minister of Industries and Commerce, referred to the opposition to the Bill m the House of Representatives, had said that as far as he could see the only real opposition was coming from bodies composed largely of representatives of overseas companies. Surely, said Lord Elibank, these bodies (and he, as one of the representatives who had not made protest, proposed to do so now) were, in the light of their investments, just as much interested in the prosperity, progress, and development of New Zealand as even the local bodies themselves. In any event the outside companies which were providing large capital were glad to do so, and were prepared to go on doing so, but if that was the way they were to be treated, there was little hope that any more capital would come from the place from which most of it came—namely, the City of London. The Minister had gone on to say that the principles of the Bill were operated in other countries, particularly Great Britain, though he admitted that they dealt with specific industries. No Similar Bill at Home “I think,” Lord Elibank continued, “that the Minister is under a misapprehension. I do not think for a moment that he would try to misrepresent anyone, but it is easy to fall into errors about what is happening 12,000 miles away, and I can assure you that, no Bill has been passed in Britain that contains the provisions incorporated in the Industrial Efficiency Bill. It is true to say that in Great Britain certain industries have approached the Government ana asked, in view of their difficulties, that it should help them and see if it could put their houses in order. Then the British Government stepped in and any legislation passed has been passed ad hoc and for those specific industries. “That is a very different thing from a Bill like the Industrial Efficiency Bill. I have read that Bill and I do not propose to analyse it. That is not my affair, and all I propose to say is that the Industrial Efficiency Bill is an omnibus Bill under which any industry can be taken charge of by the body of civil servants calling itself the Bureau of Industries. I cannot conceive of the British Government even having such a Bill in contemplation. I speak as an active member of the House of Lords, and I see all legislation that passes through the House of Commons and ultimately comes into the Senior Chamber, but no Bill of this kind has ever been mooted, so far as I know, by the Government of Great Britain.” The third sentence to which he wished to draw attention, he said, was one which was far more pleasing than those which he had already quoted. Mr Sullivan, in the same report, had said that he was anxious to give those engaged in industry a larger say in the adoption of the plan to be followed. What Figures Show “I venture to suggest to the Government,” he continued, “that it might give us in Great Britain—and we are the representatives of these outside companies—some opportunity of saying something about this Bill and the measures it contains. We, after all, have a great stake in your country and we have perhaps an even greater stake than may be thought at once,

because I find on reference to the export figures of New Zealand that of the £47,000,000 of exports which left New Zealand in 1934. £38,000,000, or 80 per cent., went to the United Kingdom, and so we are your customers. I think it was that great merchant, Mr George Selfridge, who had said ‘Customers are always right.' I won': claim that, but at least they deserve consideration. “I should like to make this appeal to the Government: that it should not pass this Bill and that it should be held up until the Minister of Finance, who is proceeding .o England, has the opporttunity of ascertaining from the .government of Great Britain what it feels this Bill may mean, and also that he might have the opportunity of conferring with the City of London to ascertain what its view is on the provisions contained in this measure."