EFFICIENCY BILL

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 249, 21 October 1936, Page 8

EFFICIENCY BILL

New Zealand Industries

PASSAGE OF MEASURE OPPOSITION AMENDMENTS FREQUENT APPLICATION OF CLOSURE ( Fcr Association J WELLINGTON, Oct. 2J. Ln the House oi itepreaem-utu cs this afternoon the rnme Minister (Hon.'AL J. Savage) moved t.iai urgency be acocrued the passing of the Industrial Efficiency Bit. ’Ahis was challenged by tae Opposition, some members saying that the Government had said it would nut hammer the Bill through, but the motion was carried by 41 votes to 15. The House went into committee to give further consideration to the measure. Dealing with Clause 2, Hon. J. G. Coates moved an amendment to eliminate from the definition of “induSvr>” any trade, occupation, business, works or services of any kind whatsoever. This would make it apply only to Opposition members contended that the Bill was far too wide in its application. Hon. D. G. Sullivan said ihat if the Bill was good for manufacturers, so the Opposition admitted, it was even more important to the other sections of industry. The chemists, for instance, had been told to put their house in order so that they could fairly, squarely and honestly meet competition. The chemists needed the Bil and it its proposals were confined .o manufacturing industry the chemists would be deprived of its operation. Why should the chemists be deprived of the opportunity of organising themselves under the Bill. The fishing industry must be co-ordinatea and the flax industry needed the Bill. He had had representations day after day and week after week asking for legislation of that kind. Many others than manufacturers were anxious to come under the Bill. He had had not one protest against the measure from any citizen of New Zealand except the Chambers of Commerce. Against that he had had hundreds of letters and telegrams from people asking that they should be brougnt under it. Favoured in Britain. Hon. W. E. Parry: Even from r company in the Old Country. Mr Sullivan said that a distinguished man in New’ Zealand had intimated so and the Minister of Internal Affairs and one of his departmental officers had informed him that if the Bill were passed an overseas firm was prepared to put. £60,000 of British money into one of New Zealand’s industries. Mr Parry: Employing 50 men. Mr Sullivan said the Opposition accepted the Bill as applied to manufacturers. He assured the Opposition that the Bill was even more urgently reouired in a number of other industries. The Bili. he added, would nor dragoon anybody unless the weight oi the industry was in favour of the plan. Then the plan would not ne applied unless the Government came to the House for legislation. It was «he most democratic piece of legislation to be fov.nl in any part of the Empire. Mr S. G. Smith (Opp.. New Plymouth) said the Bill was distasteful to everybody in the Dominion except a small section c.f manufacturers ana I he Minister had modified it to make it accentab>e o another section. Mr Coates said he had opposed tne Bill from the start. There was violent onposition to it. There was opposition on the part of manufacturers. there was onnosition in the raily nress and individ mis from one end of the countrv to th' other op-r-ncod the Fill. Were ♦’ e manufacturers unanimous on it? Thev not. he contended. Ik claimed thfi their nmninn about it was fairly evenly divided. Monopolies Mr W. A Bodkin (Opn.. Central Otago, said the Bill would bring about monopolies in certain industries and the manufacturers were astute enough to see that thev would get benefits nt the expense of the consuming nuhlic. Hon. A. Hamilton said the Bill empowered the Minister to work out plans fnr industries according to his oun liking and Perfiament would its say once the Bill was passed. He was surmised at Labour members allowing Parliament to hand over Its po’-ers to th n Government. The Prime Minister moved the closure when th? amendment had been discussed about an hour end a-half. This was carried by 39 tn 16 and the amendment was lost hv 41 to 16. A further amendment hv Mr Hamilton to exempt the fnr m i n g industry was lost by 41 to 16 and tne clause was passed hv .39 to 16. Mr W. .1 Foisrn moved an amendment to Clau-e 3 with the object of limiting tne number of ordinary members on the Bureau of Industry to six. He said he did this so as to make room for those with special knowledge ar.d so ihat the bureau would not be overweighted by civil servants. That would still give the State a majority on the bureau. Mr Sullivan said he did not want to he tied down tG a definite number but it was proposed to keep it to five or six. When the House resumed at 7.30 p.m. the closure was again applied, and after a division resulted 28 to 16 in Its favour and the amendment was defeated by 40 to 16. A further amendment to limit the term of appointment of members of the Bureau of Industry to three years, was defeated by 40 to 15, and the clause was passed by 40 to 16. Minister’s Powers. Mr R. A. Wright (Indept.. Wellington Suburbs) took exception to the next clause, which gave the Minister power to appoint the chairman and deputy-chairman. He said it made the bureau a puppet of the Minister and was a departure from the democratic principle of a body appointing its own chairman. Mr Sullivan said it was essential that the Minister should have a man