SECRET REPORTS.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 110, 10 April 1937, Page 9

SECRET REPORTS.

REPLY TO MINISTER. PUBLIC SERVICE PRACTICE. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, April 9. “L do not wish to get at cross purposes with the Minister, who I know is honestly trying to do his best for the manufacturing industry,” said Mr A. E. Mander, the retiring secretary of the New Zealand Manufacturers’ Federation, in a statement commenting upon the reply made by the Minister of Industries and Commerce (Hon. D. G. Sullivan) to his protest aaginst the use of secret reports by. the Government and the Bureau ot Industries. “I only suggest that instead of rampaging about it he might quietly consider whether the Government cannot eliminate the Fascist system (of judging and condemning firms and industries largely on the strength of reports not disclosed to them) to which 1 have drawn attention. „ . “I made a clear, definite, and reasoned criticism of the practice of the Minister and the Bureau of Industry making decisions largely - on the strength of secret reports prepared by departmental officers. It is disappointing to find that Mr Sullivan in his hasty rejoinder does not give any indication that he has even Seen the point of my argument. I am content to leave it for the public to read my statement and Mr Sullivan s reply side by side. . “The Minister’s outburst regarding tho integrity and ability of bis departmental officers is . undoubtedly w ell meant, but quite beside the point. Presumably the integrity or the public servants is about equal to that of the legal prolession, the business community, or any other representative body of New Zealanders. In other words, generally good, but w eak in some cases. The same is true ot the level of ability in tho 1 üblic Service. There is no reason lor either politicians or public servants to develop a, ‘superiority complex’ with regard to the rest of the community. Ot New Zealand people as a whole, and of public servants as a representative sample of them, we are bound to recognise that we are a mixed lot. “However, in my statement 1 expressly refrained from raising the question of the ability of departmental officers to make reliablo reports reports on efficiency or the management of business. 1 expressly excluded that point because it was lrrevelant to tho particular question with which I was dealing. I was not referring to the conclusions arrived at, the decision made, or the judgment passed upon industry. I was referring to the report uiion which such conclusion oi judgment was based. If tho Governmeat or the bureau, largely on the strength of a secret report, makes a decision adverse to a particular industry or firm, the clear tact is that that industry has been condemned on evidence which it has not seen and not been given an opportunity to correct “It is a nity that Mr Sullivan does not see this* point. It is really much more important than worrying as to whether members of the clerical division of the Public Service should oi should not be reierred to as public service clerks, or whether undertakers ought not in future to be known as morticians. Surely the new snobbery liris not decreed tliftt tlie word clcik must now be regarded as a term of disparagement.”

COMMENT AT AUCKLAND

Per Press Association. AUCKLAND, April 9. A statement that he did not wish to become involved in any' controversy as a result of Mr A. E. Mander s attack oil the methods employed by the Government in investigating industrial efficiency was made by the president of the New Zealand Manufacturers federation, Mr D. Henry, to-night. Mr Henry said lie wished to comment upon only one remark by Mr Mander and upon Press reference to that remark. In Ins statement -given on his retirement from the secretaryship of the Manufacturers’ federation, Mr Mander had said that he had come upoii dozens of cases of misunderstandings between departmental officers and industrialists when inquiries into industries the latter represented had been made A Wellington newspaper had therefore asked why the Manufacturers’ Association had not raised the matter earlier, said Mr Henry. The answer to that question was that the federation had no previous knowledge of such misunderstandings.