INDUSTRIAL EFFICIENCY

Evening Star, Issue 22465, 9 October 1936, Page 3

INDUSTRIAL EFFICIENCY

MANUFACTURERS CONSIDER NEW MEASURE GENERAL PRINCIPLE APPROVED IMPORTANT REVISIONS DESIRED While expressing approval of the general principle as set out in the title of the Industrial Efficiency Bill at present before the House of Representatives, members of the Dunedin Manufacturers’ Association, at a meeting held on Wednesday night, were unanimous in protesting against various aspects of the Bill and the manner in which such a vital piece of legislation was being rushed through Parliament. The meeting, which was presided over by Mr J. Sutherland was held, following a number of meetings of the Executive Committee, in order that Dunedin manufacturers could give their views on a measure so important to the welfare of the Dominion as a whole.

The Executive Committee submitted the following resolutions, which were sent to the New Zealand Manufacturers’ Federation headquarters during the past week-end;— “ That this meeting of the Dunedin Manufacturers’ Association, having discussed and considered the Industrial Efficiency Bill now before Parliament — so far as it concerns manufacturers—hereby resolves as follows: — “ 1. That it approves the principle of the Bill as set out in the title thereto as being ‘ to promote the economic welfare of New Zealand by providing for the promotion of new industries in the most economic form and by so regulating the general organisation, development, and operation of industries that a greater measure of industrial efficiency will be secured.’ “2. That the association nevertheless makes strong protest against the Bill as now drafted, mainly on the grounds that the principle of bureaucratic control is not adequately removed from the Bill by the amendment to section 3 dealing with the constitution of the bureau. It is submitted that sub-sections (3), (4), and (5) of section (3) should be redrafted to ensure: (a) That all manufacturers’ representatives on the bureau should be appointed only on the recommendation of either the Manufacturers’ Federation (under clause 3a), or of the particular industry affected under clause (3c); (b) that a greater degree of permanency should apply to the appointments under clause (3b) than can be anticipated in view of the Minister’s power under clause (5).

“3. That sufficient time has not been given for full consideration and representations to be madeand that in view of the paramount importance of the legislation, the Government and the Minister of Industries be urged to defer consideration of the Bill till next session to enable further discussion and conference with a view to amendments which'will make it more acceptable to those whose interests are so vitally concerned.

“ 4. That this association is not prepared to approve the Bill, even if effect is given to the foregoing matters, unless there is a definite assurance from the Minister that the Bill will be passed only with the inclusion of a provision that no industrial plan or amendment to any such plan shall be operative unless and until it is endorsed by manufacturers engaged in the industry concerned representing two-thirds of the output of that industry.

“ 5. That instead of the right of appeal being only to the Minister, a judicial body should be provided to which appeal can be made.”

These resolutions were unanimously endorsed by the meeting, and strong resentment was expressed that a measure of such far-reaching consequences was being rushed through before individual manufacturers had had an opportunity to consider the Bill and make such representations as they thought desirable in the interests of the country and their particular industry.

The Chairman said that Dunedin manufacturers had purposely _ abstained from expression of their views in the local Press, as it was felt that the constitutional method was to let all publicity be undertaken by the federation headquarters. The North Island centres had not followed this course, and in consequence Dunedin manufacturers were regarded as endorsing the statements which had l been made by affiliated associations. This was far from being the case, as the resolutions showed. The meeting was again unanimous in carrying a further resolution to the effect that the views of the association should be handed to tho Press for publication. Tho .feeling of the meeting was strongly in support of the principle of the Bill as set out in the title—“ to promote the economic welfare of New Zealand ” —and in this the Dunedin Manufacturers’ Association was in full accord with its sister associations in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch.