RESTRICTIVE EFFECT

Evening Star, Issue 22464, 8 October 1936, Page 13

RESTRICTIVE EFFECT

NEW TURN TO EFFICIENCY BILL DEBATE OPPOSITION SEEKS REDRAWING OF MEASURE TOO SWEEPING AND DRASTIC [From Oor Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, October 7. After three clays’ discussion of the Industrial Efficiency Bill the Opposition gave a new turn to the debate the House to-night when their leader, Mr Forbes, moved an amendment to the motion for the second reading. It requested the House to refer the Bill back to the Government for the purpose of reconstruction on the lines of dealing only with specific or particular industries if a majority of those composing such industries have expressed a desire to come under its provisions. When Mr Wilkinson (Egmont) seconded the amendment -Mr M'Combs raised laughter among Labour members by declaring—“ The old leader and the new.” Mr Forbes suggested that, the word “ board ” having become obnoxious to the Government, it was setting up a body called a bureau. This was to have power in planning industries. He, as a farmer, would not like to see members of a bureau, though excellent public servants, deciding how he was to plan. It was ludicrous, and he could not understand the Minister adopting such an idea. When New Zealand imposed high Customs duties, and outside manufacturers complained, they were told they were welcome to bring their capital into New Zealand and manufacture here, but under this Bill he could not imagine any overseas firm attempting- to come in when it had to satisfy a bureau which could impose impossible conditions. He could quite understand men already established deciding that they wanted nobody else in their industry. He reminded the Government that when the former administration introduced measures relating to the dairying and fneat industries they allowed them to remain before the House many weeks, during which time committees of the House called evidence and went thoroughly into the proposals. The result was that when they were reported the whole House had confidence in their recommendations ; but in the present case this was not done, though there was an efficient Industries and Commerce Committee. He was not going to say that the clauses relating to research were not necessary, but he felt sure that most of the provisions of the Bill would have an opposite effect from that expected by the Minister in charge, for they would not encourage the development of industry, or find more employment. He was positive that if a committee of the House had considered the Efficiency Bill it would not have supported some of its provisions, while the Minister himself must see the danger of taking the complete onus on himself regarding decisions about carrying on industries. He was also doubtful if the manufacturers had all been able to give their opinion. He moved his amendment, not for the purpose of prolonging the debate, but because it was too farreaching in its power to regulate all industry. He considered the Prime Minister was not showing consideration to the House, nor studying the efficiency of its legislation without permitting it to be considered by a select committee, to which members would pay more attention than to any other body he knew. It was a unique experience for such a measure to be put through without investigation, and the Minister in charge, when in the Opposition, always insisted that the former Government should its Bills to committee. The Prime Minister: And it seldom did!

Mr Forbes: We certainly did with a Bill of this magnitude. The amendment was seconded by Mr Wilkinson (National, Egmont), who said it was not known to the people vitally concerned. Tens of thousands of people came within the scope of the Bill, which simply controlled the whole country. It was of such, magnitude that it was absolutely essential that it should be held over for further consideration.

While he was opposed to the Bill, Mr Wilkinson added, he could not agree with those who said that no organisation of industry was necessary. He believed there were many industries in need of organisation. Ho felt certain that the Minister did not want to hurt anyone, but ho was mistaken in his ideas. If the Government put the Bill into operation it would do a very great wrong to enterprising people.

The Bill was sweeping; it was drastic: it affected the whole community, the whole field of commerce, and the whole field of activity. It simply meant handing over all initiative, all enterprise, all control to the Minister. He believed that the Minister himself felt that the Bill was shaky—that it was not too good.

Though several Oppositionists supported delay, no Government members commented on the amendment, which, on the division, was lost bv 42 votes to 17.

The debate was then adjourned, and is not to bo resumed on Thursday, as the Finance Bill is (o receive preference.