USE OF CONTROLS

Evening Post, Volume CXXXVIII, Issue 10, 12 July 1944, Page 6

USE OF CONTROLS

WHAT SAFEGUARDS?

WARTIME. EXPERIENCE

Aspects of wartime controls were discussed at a meeting of the Wellington branch of the New Zealand Institute of Public Administration this week, when Messrs. H. Parsonage (National Service Department), H. L. Wise (member of the Price Tribunal), and Dr. J. L. Robson (vice-president of the institute) continued discussion inaugurated by Dr. O. C. Mazengarb at last week's meeting of the institute. In his earlier address Dr. Mazengarb had claimed that there was a tendency towards State control for the mere sake of controlling, that there was an element of "bossism" in the way some controls were exercised, that regulations were drafted in control departments instead of by the Law Drafting Officers, and that abuses were likely to go unchecked because of the lack of the right of appeal to ordinary courts of law. The New Zealand man-power regulations dated from the third year of the war, said Mr. Parsonage. They were definitely war measures, coming .into effect six weeks after Pearl Harbour. Between November, 1941, and September, 1942, the number of men withdrawn from industry for the Armed Forces increased by 90,000, from 80,000 to 170,(100. As a result, 29 per cent, of the male population between the ages of 15 and 64 were in the Armed Forces. In this situation man-power control was absolutely necessary to maintain 'the essential services and production needed if the country's war effort was not to be impaired. New Zealand's manpower regulations were modelled on those of Great Britain, where also cO.'.trol of man-power was taken under emergency regulations and not under statutory legislation. All Allied countries except the tJnited States of America had man-power controls similar to New Zealand's. In the U.S.A. the opinion was widely held that absence of an adequate ■ system of recruiting and allocating man-power was a major weakness of the nation's war effort. ADVICE OF COMMITTEES. It was not claimed that no mistakes had been made in the administration of the Man-power Regulations. ' The Department, however, aimed at carrying out its functions in • co-operation with employers and workers. Representative man-power utilisation committees had been set up in twenty-two main industries, and close attention was given to the recommendation of those committees. So man-power problems were not determined at the whim of a public servant, as Dr. Mazengarb suggested,-but on the recommendation of men in the industry concerned. There had been 100,000 manpower directions to date, and the number of appeals from both employers and workers was below 3 per cent, of this total. Mr. Parsonage referred to Dr. Mazengarb's statement that regulations were faulty through being drafted by officers in departments instead of by the law draftsmen. The fact was that no regulation of the National Service Department was gazetted unless it was drafted by the Law Drafting Office. Orders of the Department, under the regulations, were also drafted by the law,draftsmen. The National Service Department, Mr.1 Parsonage said, could claim to have done a fairly effective job and contributed in no small measure to the war effort. He wondered whether Dr. Mazengarb had considered what would have happened if there had been no controls. DEMAND FROM PUBLIC.' Mr. Wise said the implication of what Dr. Mazengarb had said was that controls had been introduced for their own sake, with little or no demand from the public. In fact, however, the controls had arisen from demands of the public or sections of the public. For example, controls affecting honey, lemons, eggs, hops, and tobacco had been introduced at the request of the people whose livelihood it was to pro,duce those things. Price control in New Zealand had originated in "a de,mand from the public for protection from the exploitation that would inevitably arise in wartime if there were no such control. There was no desire for "bossism" or the big stick in the Price Tribunal. The tribunal had always endeavoured to co-operate with traders, and to avoid, the use of its powers unless they were necessary. Unfortunately there were always some traders who did not wish to co-operate, who wished to increase prices without authority, and used every legal loophole to avoid compliance with their obligations. When, after investigation, it was decided to issue a Price Order, the Order was prepared in draft form by the tribunal's legal staff. After, consideration by the tribunal, it was submitted to the law draftsmen, before going to the Minister for approval. It was a standing direction of the Cabinet that all proposed new regulations should be certified by the Law Drafting Office. Price control was difficult and : unpopular. The tribunal was • criticised by the public if prices rose, and by traders if they were not allowed to rise; yet the record of price control in New Zealand compared very favourably with that' in any other country. A SPECIAL COURT. Dr. Robson said Dr. Mazengarb's criticisms represented the laissez-faire approach. He agreed with some of those criticisms but differed from others. Dr. Robson considered Parliament had not legislated as it might have done, that sometimes confusion had been caused in the interpretation of the law, and that the system by which an administrative head or a Minister was judge in his own cause was inadvisable. Other criticism could be based on the haphazard fashion in which controlling agencies had been set up, with lack of uniform procedure, and with lack of a definite personnel policy. The problem was to devise means of removing weaknesses and anomalies. Dr. Robson considered that the present position might be investigated by a body with the status of a Royal Commission. For the provision of adequate safeguards, the only solution appeared to be the setting up of a special Administrative Court to deal with all appeals from decisions of the various administrative bodies. Such: a court, with a clear and simplified procedure, could ensure that controllers exercised discretion and did not exceed their limits. Such a special court existed in pre-war France. its judges having wide experience of administration. INDEPENDENT CONTROL. Dr. Mazengarb, replying to the discussion, said he had emphasised that the problems he discussed were not confined to New Zealand. He agreed that it was quite right for the State during wartime to have some of the controls of the kind under discussion.) But it was not right that these powers) should be exercised in a "bossy" way. i He gave further examples of what he described as "bossism" by some of the new growth departments. One had only to compare the annual volume of New Zealand statutes with any corresponding volume of regulations to see that the regulations themselves were ten times more bulky. How could the staff of the Law Drafting Office, only sufficient originally to draft statutes,'cope with the regulations also —ten times the quantity of work—except' in a purely cursory fashion? Mention had been made of''control of the controllers by Cabinet; but this was not an adequate control, for it meant there was no control outside the executive branch of the Government. If we continued to allow the executive to usurp the province of the legislature, Parliament would be reduced to a mere forum for the discussion of public grievances. The control he wanted to see prescribed was control by the ordinary law courts, which were independent of the executive, and must remain so. Only by this means could the freedom- of the people be maintained. :■ , INDIAN DECORATED Rec.ll a.m. RUGBY, July-11. Admiral Louis Mountbatten pinned the Distinguished Flying Cross on the tunic of Squadron Leader 'Arjun Singh when he visited the Imphal front recently, thus decorating the first Indian pilot in the field, according to an Allahabad message Speaking from the wing of a Hurricane, the Commander-in-Chief congratulated the airmen on the magnificent work they had done in reopening the'Kohima-Imphal road.—B.O.W.