STATE & INDUSTRY

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 164, 29 July 1937, Page 9

STATE & INDUSTRY

"Unjustifiable Exemption from Efficiency Act BUSINESSMEN'S VIEW

The increased prominence which is being given to the activities of the Bureau of Industry under the Industrial Efficiency Act gives rise to questions of considerable public importance in relation to the application of the Act to industry, eays a statement by the Associated Chambers of Commerce of New ZealancL For instance, it is a serious omission that there is nothing in the Act which provides tliat at shail bind the Crowu. m other words, nonc of the manufaeturing activities in which Ihe State. engages now or at any future time may be brought under the plans which may at any time be applied to the privato units in particular industries. Consequently, those activities engaged in by the State, such as the manufacture of goods by the railwaya workshops in competition with private enterprise; coal-mining, timber-milling, the operation of quarries, etc., will not como under the revicvy of the Bureau of Industry as the firms with which those activities compete will do. It is not opeu to the bureau to investigate or to show whether the State is efficient or dneffieient in its manufacturing method*. Even though private eoneerns may be refused Iiceuces by the bureau, and forced to close down, State enterprises may not be touched. The eilect will be to discharge these State undertakings from the charge of inefficiency, redundancy and uueconomic operation. without ev6r bringing them to trial and hearing the evidence. \ Wider Than Manufacturing. However, this is not all, Ic m not merely the State 's manufacturing entoiprises which are excluded from the scope of the Act. The interpretation in the Act qf the word "industry" is given to include "any trade, occupation, business, manufacture, works or any service of any k-ind whatsoever." There could be nothing more comprehensive than this. The bureau could decide to regulate and license banking, money-lendiug, legal work aud trustccship, insurance, in-inting, and tso ou. Bespite the iact that the State engages in all these activities, as well as many others — listed in a recent statement by the Assoeiated Chambers — the Bureau of- Industry has no power to deal with any of them, but must conliuo itself to the private concerna which aro engaged in such activities. How can. such a lop-sided position bring abou't just, equitable an'd comprehensive decisions by the bureau, and achieve tho stated object of the Act, which is, inter alia, "so to regulate the general organieation, development and operation • of industries that a greator measure of industrial efficiency will lx» •secured"? If there is going to be auv regulation or wiping out of units in industry, or in other gainful occupatious under the powers provided by the Act, theu it is the height of injustice for State undertakings, which enjoy no inherent merit whatever over private enterprise, to be excluded and rendered immune from such regulation and elimination. Already private business concerna are at a serious disadvantage because of tho isame rent, rates, taxes, and othor charges aud couditions which they have to meet not being rcquired of State trading undertakings which are coinpetitive with them. These State enterprises will be doubly . strengthened if, continuing to enjoy their special and unfair taxation privileges, they are able to operate at will and. whim in a field :n which competition has been deliberately weakened and reduced by application of the Act's restrictivo powers to tho competing private busiuesses. New State Enterprises? Thirdly, when any "industry" (in . ..o wide seuse given in the Act) has ^cen thoroughly tied down with regulaiions and rostractions, and perhaps when some of the units have been refused liconces to continue in operation, there is nothing to prevent the Sttlte i'rorn (1) expanding its own activities in that industry, and (2) iustituting now enterprkses. Jradeed, such a development was frankly foreshadowed by the Leader of the Legislativo Council (Hon. M. Fagan) in the Council last ) e.ar when the Industrial Efficiency Bill was under criticism. According to Hansard, the Ministor t=aid; "There is nothing in the Bill to bind tho Crown. I would say that the question of competition from State works in any given direction will eventually have to come under review, but I would like to be quite frank and state that while there will perhaps be need of co-ordination between certain State enterprises and private enterprise in any line of manufacture, and whiist I say it may be necessary from time to time to co-operate as far as possiblo as between State and private enterprise in the same category, tne day ma.y come when it will be necessary for the State to strike out on its own in any enterprise in the public interest, and, at that point, whether it pays duty, saies tax, exchangc and all the other taxes mentioned, that also ailects tlie policy of the Governmcnt, and ca« weJJ be )oi't until the timjo arrives for tliut aspoct of the matter to be deall with." The Government has so far exhibited no inclination or intention to impose proper taxation and other charges and conditione on its existing trading undertakings, so that traders and the taxpaying community, who are already called on to bear. more than their tarr skare of taxation, will want to know earlier than on some vague future date the basis of taxation and conditious for any uew State trading undertakings which may be launcked. Then again. the staUement by the Leader of the Legislative Council that State competition will eventually have to come under review, 'is no guarautee, under the Act as at present drawn, tliat it will. There should be no doubt whatever concernmg the future status cf the State under an Act which involves bureaucratic control of all industrial and commorcial activity iu the Domiraion, and complcte subjugatiou of all privato eutorpriso.