INDUSTRIAL EFFICIENCY

Evening Star, Issue 22459, 2 October 1936, Page 13

INDUSTRIAL EFFICIENCY

Licensing and Control by Bureau Second Reading of Momentous Bill “Nationalisation,” Not “Rationalisation” A marathon speech of two hours and twenty minutes duration, which easily broke the record for the session, was made by Mr Sullivan in the House when moving the second reading of the Industrial Efficiency Bill. The time limit under the Standing Orders is half an hour, but when an extension is granted there is no further limit. The Minister began his speech at 0.40 p.m., and continued, with his extension of time, until the tea adjournment at 5.30, resuming at 7.30. It was 8 o’clock when he sat down, to the accompaniment of applause from the Opposition members. Mr Holland, who had been chosen by the Opposition to open its case, remarked at the beginning of his speech that he had listened to the Minister for over two hours and a quarter, and was “ still thirsting for information about the Bill.” The Minister spent about an hour and a-quarter in explaining the general purpose of the Bill and the objects he had in view in the. co-ordination of industry, and devoted the remainder of his time to a detailed clause by clause explanation of its provisions. He made a strong point that, as the legislation was of experimental nature, it would be administered with care and discretion, and said he had no intention of rushing in and rationalising all industries, preferring to select one or two as a start to form a basis. He mentioned coal mining and flax as industries which could benefit particularly by organisation.

MINISTER STATES ISSUE GUT-THROAT COMPETITION OR ORDERED METHODS BUSINESS ITSELF SOUGHT RELIEF [Pee United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, October 1. Urgency was accorded the second reading of the Industrial Efficiency Bill, the second reading of which was moved by Mr Sullivan, who said the Bill was desirable in the interests of the country, unless they were to shut their eyes to what had existed in tho past and to neglect the utilisation of the natural resources of the country. Had he not brought the measure forward, a similar measure for the preservation of industries would have been necessary in the future. He had been told by a reliable person that, there were far more coal mines in New Zealand than the requirements of the Dominion justified, and the Government had had no control over the opening up of new mines on freehold property, and the industry had become over-capital-ised. It was urged that the future of the industry should be controlled. That was not the only industry that suffered from lack of co-ordination. The flax industry was another, and he was making an effort to rejuvenate that industry so that it could play tho part it ought to play in the economic development of the Dominion. There was a widespread tendency throughout tho world to introduce phases of this measure, often involving eo-ordination, often involving licensing, but all involving substantial control of industry to prevent over-capitalisation. The newspapers had taken a fair view of the Bill and had given it some measure of support. He was pleased the manufacturers were giving general support to the Bill. Mr Poison: Are they asking for licensing? . „ Mr Sullivan: “Yes.” He went on to say that he had received an intimation that the manufacturers generally approved the Bill, including licensing and co-ordination. There were some amendments they would like, and to some degree he had endeavoured to meet thqjn regarding representation on the Bureau of Industry. The whole of the manufacturers did not support the Bill, but he thought three-fourths of the organised manufacturers approved the Bill in the main. The issue was whether they were to have the survival of the fittest, free cut-throat competition, and the law of the jungle, or whetheT they were to have organisation, ordered industrial life,, and the application of the best principles of civilisation to the conduct of industry, .and people throughout the world were lining up on that issue. As far as trade unionists were concerned, they had settled the issue for themselves long ago. To-day there was a surplus number of competing units and cut-throat competition, and week after week he had people from industry after industry, business after business, and service after service in his office asking for something better, asking for co-ordination and co-operation ; asking for an opportunity of conducting their businesses ou a principle that would enable them to get some happiness out of life and put an end to the desperate daily cut-throat competition in which they are involved; and, in anticipation of the present Bill or a similar Bill, they had set about the task of preparing their efficiency schemes. The Bill was intended to produce organisation between all section of the manufacturers, workers, and consumers for the good of industry, and under the parentage and guidance of the State.

If it was necessary for industries to have tariff protection and subsidies and assistance from the State, it was equally justifiable and quite right and proper that the State itself should exercise supervision over the development of those industries. It was not intended to start rationalising all industries at once and to keep the Bureau of Industry working day and night. His idea was to take _ one industry which was ripe for rationalisation, set the machinery in motion, and then take one industry at a time. As they went along they would gain experience as to wtiat was the most effective way of working. If they endeavoured to deal with many industries at once they would get into difficulties. THE SOVIET SYSTEM'. Mr Holland said that although Mr Sullivan had spoken for 2-i hours, he (Mr Holland) was still thirsting for knowledge. He said the Bill savoured of the Soviet system, though private ownership remained. The task the Minister had tackled was one of extreme difficulty and great complexity. He thought the Bill was too dangerous to proceed. The traders and manufacturers had turned to the Government for some form of relief from the problems that faced them, and desire for some form of control was expressed, as it was thought it would rid the manufacturers of some of their problems. He believed that many of the allegations of inefficiency were unjustified. They were often made by those who had not full knowledge of the position. He considered that industry in New Zealand was reasonably efficient, but there was still room for improvement. Ho was in complete agreement with several of the provisions of the Bill, and believed a live bureau could be of great service to industry by co-operating with the Department of Industrial and Scientific Research and passing along the information it received to the manufacturers. A bureau that functioned in an advisory capacity would he welcomed by all manufacturers, but giving the bureau control of industry was a different matter. Ho strongly opposed handing over the industries of New Zealand, whether primary or secondary, to a bureau composed of Civil servants. He believed that with a little strengthening of the present system industry would be able to survive and prosper. If Socialism of industry failed, private enterprise had to bear the loss. If it succeeded, the scheme would be definitely limited as to the amount of production, type of goods produced, and the profits to be made. The Bill did not respect the rights of private individuals. It was vague in many respects, and it was also indefinite. He claimed that the secondary industries should receive more support. While £700,000 was spent on the agricultural industries, the secondary industries had only £28,000 spent, on them. Mr M‘Combs said the function of the Bureau of Industry would be to lay down the plan industry was to follow. It would then leave the industry to work out the details for itself. In the past industry had been dealt with pieoeuieal, but the present Government had decided to deal with it as a whole, and the Bill before the House was the result. He referred to the way the dairy industry had been rationalised, and said the same could be done in other industries. STIFLING INDUSTRY. Mr Poison said the responsibility of the Government was not merely to some particular industry, but to the people who had created tho opportunity for industry. What, he asked, would an avowedly Socialistic Government do with the great powers given in the Bill p Ho believed a greater measure of coordination could be brought about with benefit to industry. The Government officials on the bureau would be entirely under the thumb of the Minister, anil they would know nothing about industry. He criticised the proposal to make levies without the authority of Parliament, and said it amounted to extra taxation imposed without the knowledge or consent of Parliament. The powers taken by the Government under the Bill were greater than those taken by any other country. The legislation was not a bad imitation of the German plan proposals. They were not new, but had been tried out in Britain in the times of the Tudors and their successors. There were powers in the 'Bill that would have serious consequences in industry, and there wore powers that would stifle free competition.

It was nationalisation of indus* try, not rationalisation. The Bill, he was afraid, might lead to chaos, and he thought the country mightyet need a Cromwell to save it It was a tragedy, and the results would not be what the Government expected. PROTECTION AGAINST UNFAIRNESS. Mr Williams said New Zealand still had the problem of unemployment before it, and the Bill, in company with the other legislation that had been passed, would assist industry and develop new industries. He reminded Mr Poison that the previous Government gave dairy control and had the power to make a levy on the dairy industry. It was extreme competition that led to inefficiency. He referred to efforts in Britain to organise industry. Mr Williams admitted that the Bill would be dangerous if administered by certain people, but it would not be dangerous in the way the Labour Party would administer it. The Bill protected business people against ill-conceived and unfair competition. He opposed postponement of the Bill, as it would give the Minister the opportunity to do much good work in rationalising industry during the recess. DELAY COUNSELLED. Sir A. Ransom said be regarded the Bill as one of the most dangerous enactments ever submitted to the House, and one calculated to do a great deal of harm to the secondary industries. He claimed that little attention could be paid to the opinions of the newspapers and manufacturers, as the Bill had been before the House only a few days and neither members nor others had been able to digest its provisions; and later, when the provisions were fully known, they would get the true opinions of those who would be affected by the measure. The measure was so far-reaching in its effects that members should have ample opportunity of expressing their opinions upon it. Thu debate was adjourned.