WHO HAS IT?

Evening Post, Volume CXXXII, Issue 77, 27 September 1941, Page 10

WHO HAS IT?

UNDER BUREAUCRACY

WHY NOT TRY SELF-

RELIANCE?

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —I listened on Tuesday evening to the debate on the Standards Bill, and whilst finding its entertainment value nil, managed to, extract a little sombre amusement from the reflection that only recently Mr. Nash had so movingly assured us that we are fighting for the right to live oui own lives in our own way. I remembered also that care had been taken that objectors with non-standard consciences should have special appeal tribunals to make doubly sure that this sacred right was not violated.

Having made the world safe for these specially-privileged citizens, we now turn our attention to employers who with such ingenuity, are defrauding the innocent public. I recollec. not so long ago a column or so in "The Pjbst" in which Mr. Sullivan lauded to the skies the amazing progress made by industries. Can it be that oui industrialists are after all so second rate that we must have a special police force to impresb on them a fact which every intelligent manufacturer discovered long ago—i.e., you cannot build industries by fooling the public? In a iongish career I have seen the rise and fall of many businesses, and have yet to see a good example of success built on anything but fair dealing, quality, and value. The best corrective ol' crooked dealing is informed public opinion coupled with healthy and free competition from an efficient and square-dealing opponent. The biggest loser in connection with 'cardboard shoes" is the man who. made them. I doubt if there are many New Zealanders who would not find a quick way of sheeting home this offence to the retailer wno sold the shoes, and through him, to the man who ' made them. I think we are virile and self-reliant enough as a race not to need a Government \ Department to do a little job like that. If our laws against fraud do not cover such matters, it should not be difficult to tighten them up without affecting the liberty of other manufacturers. Similarly, I doubt whether the toothpaste manufacturer who tries to fool the public by the childish device" of putting a small tube in a big carton will fool very many once, and wili certainly fool no one twice.

The plain fact is that the great majority of manufacturers are sensible business men who are honest because they are made that way, and because it pays to be. Also, they are continually using their experience and knowledge to improve the standard of the goods they make, and they do not need the assistance of civil servants in their job. The Government is, nowever, hag-ridden with the obsession that "experts" (don't we know them!) can do all this much better. Of course, no one will be hurt—these powers will not be abused! We are expected to^ believe that assurance when the most extreme and far-reaching interference with the lives of the. people ever perpetrated—import restrictions (alias Import Selection) —was foisted on business and industry 'without a single word of discussion in Parliament. The people, lulled by soft words, are not yet awake to the fact that the Government has almost complete control over our food, clothing, hobbies, and amusements, and to a large extent, our culture. Every fresh bout of interference means more inefficient administration by "experts," means more hours spent in Government Departments.

No bureaucratic control will take the place of individual brains, enterprise, experience, and self-respect. Standardisation will mean in most cases stagnation. One wonders what would happen to a manufacturer who boldly marked 'his products "Miles better than standard." • I somehow think he j would get little encouragement. Of course, there is a case for reasonable standardisation. There is also a case for compulsion; but if for the occasional benefit we must sacrifice freedom, it means that we have once again paid too great a price for too small and illusory a benefit. Why not try educating the public to discriminate between good and bad commodities, as some of us have learned to discriminate between real and synthetic freedom? Why not give decency, honesty, good will, and com- J mon sense a chance, and permit the national character to retain its indi-1 viduality? In conclusion, may I suggest, on the principle that all Britishers are innocent until proved guilty, the Minister should under Section XI of the Bill, be obliged to prove his case for compulsory . standardisation v before the same sort of appeal tribunal as that set up for the protection of conscientious objectors. As it stands, the victim must prove to his accuser that he 'is efficient and/or honest—surely a travesty of justice and freedom.—l am, etc MANUFACTURER.,