NEW ZEALAND INDUSTRIES.

Taranaki Daily News, 18 September 1919, Page 5

NEW ZEALAND INDUSTRIES.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE'S REPORT. FURTHER DISCUSSED BY MEMBERS. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. In the House of Representatives this evening, The adjourned debate on the report of the Industries Committee was continued by Mr. Hunter (Waipawa), who dealt with tlie operations of the American Meat Trust, declaring that it was Jlie duty of the Government to prevent this or any other trust obtaining monopolies to the detriment of the people. Mr. Siiley (Diincdin South) said the report was of especial value, because it, was the work of members of both sides of the House. It contained an after-war policy which no Government could afford to ignore. He thought a blunder had been committed in letting Mr. Parry, the hydro-electric engineer, leave the Dominion at this juncture, because the present needs of the country called for the most highly qualified experts, and he said this without seeking to reflect on Mr. Parry's successor. He felt that tho subject of forestry had not been sufficiently stressed in the report. It was not sufficiently recognised that forestry was a science, and he advocated the employment of a trained expert to collect data as to the growth of native trees, so that we might clear a way towards replanting our forests. He advocated the nationalisation of the mines, with a superannuation scheme for the miners, which he thought was calculated to eliminate strikes. The procuring of independent exnerts was advocated for the purpose of obtaining impartial reports on the value of iron ore deposits, and as to the practicability of making paper from New Zealand woods. The encouragement of the fishing industry, and assistance for education and the care of the health of children were urged. In conclusion he pointed out that the report dealt almost exclusively with the increase of material wealtli. This was necessary, but he hoped that in our scheme of reconstruction we would not run too exclusively to material things, otherwise we should be in danger of ultimately falling into the ways of Gcrnianv.

Mr. Pearce (Patea) said that as a member of the Industries Commission he opposed the nationalisation of coal mine."), as he had not heard any arguments from Labor members and others to satisfy him this course was going to he of any benefit to the country. In Australia they had a Labor Government, hut they had not nationalised the mines. He quoted a strongly expressed opinion by an Australian Labor member against nationalisation. Until the position was cleared up he declined to commit himself to tho scheme. He favored a State monopoly of transport, including shipping, and he warned the House against letting the American Trust get control of the freezing ships, as by that means they would be able to dictate their own terms to tho farmers of the Dominion. He criticised the customs tariff, concluding that no goods should get the benefit of preferential duty unless at least 50 per cent, of the article consisted of British manufacture. Under the present system German and American motors came in under preferential duty because 25 per cent, of them was claimed to be of British manufacture. He objected to the proposed main roads of the Dominion being nationalised. He had seen enough of Government control to satisfy him that local bodies were the best governing authority. The advent of the motor car, however, deserved consideration, but lie emphatically opposed a special tax on cars, as they were now a necessity in any progressive country. ■Mr. Forbes said the cordial reception, of the report by the country proved that the country was looking for a lead in the direction of progress. The people had been told ft great deal about reconstruction policy, but they wanted more than speeches, and here, in the report, was a policy which gave a lead for many years to come. AH' it required was enthusiasm to carry it out. One of the difficulties in the way of giving eflect to the recommendations was the shortage of labor. The committee heard that cry everywhere. Ho strongly favored an active immigration policy to overcome this shortage, and as a means of ensuring its success he urged that the conditions for labor be made as attractive as possible. Only people who could do a day's work were needed, hecause our motto for the future must be self-reliance. He strongly deprecated the present system of purchasing land for soldiers. What we were doing was merely putting up values against ourselves, The fact was that many members of the 'Farmers' Union and similar organisations did not realise we had been fighting a great war, or that we had put greater restrictions on personal liberties than had ever been placed on them before. For this reason, some more drastic system of dealing with land must be adopted. Aggregation was going on, and the departments were not preparing statistics to ahow to what extent it was gwng on. This was jiot as it should be These departments should be suggesting to the Minister the kind of information that would be useful to the people Instead of that, unless the departments were prodded up, one could get nothing from them . He did not blame Ministers tor tlus, because they ,were, under peculiar circumstances, merely marking time They could not bring down a policy until after the elections had been held. For that reason he hoped the elections would be held at the earliest possible moment Mr. Semplo said Mr. Pearce had declared lie would not favor the nationalisation of the coal mines, yet he denounced the shipping monopoly. What difference, lie asked, was there between the shipping monopdly and the cfoal monopoly? All monopolies were alike But in endeavoring to prove to the hon! gentleman that a coal monopoly was wrong he had to bear in. mind that it >vas practically impossible to convince any man against his economic l interests and therefore he would not attempt the impossible. Yet th# Triple Alliance of Labor in Britain favored nationalisation and Mr. Justice Snnkey favored it Of the success of the State mines there could be no question. The Point Elizabeth mine made .a profit of £23572 while the price of coal had not been raised, which proved that with sympathetic administration State management of the coal industry might be made a magnificent success. He was not a direct actionist. He did not believe in direct action, though members might be surprised to hear him say so. He favored sympathetic dealing between employer and employee, and quoted freely from the Whitley Commission's reJorfoS du.tr.al unrest to show how unrest can best be removed, Mr. Edward Newman said there were few countries where secondary industries were more required than in

land. While not a protectionist, ho believed there was one industry that required protection, namely, wheat growing, in order that people might have chimp bread. He deprecated undue reliance on Australia for wheat, as shipping difficulties and the droughts made supply too irregular. Concerning shipping, he was not in favor of the Government acquiring ships of its own, but thought they might acquire a controlling influence in some shipping lines. He hoped the recommendations of the commission on the subject of banking would not be overlooked by the Government. Mr. McCallum complained that the commission had spread its operations over too many subjects. It was quite impossible for any government to do justice to all the 38 recommendations of the commission during the next twenty years, lie urged'that our industries should V completely elatsilied, and that legislation should 'lie passed protecting tho rights of whalers, who were following the oldest industry in the Dominion. The debate was continued by Messrs Field (Nelson) and Ansley. After midnight the debate proceeded on lines favorable to the committee's report, the speakers being Messrs Rhodes (Thames), Talbot, Luke, Poland, Anderson, and Field (Otaki). The debate was unfinished when the telegraph office closed.