Control of Industry

Manawatu Times, Volume 62, Issue 124, 27 May 1937, Page 7

Control of Industry

The Efficiency Act ADMINISTRATION CRITICISED. (Special to “Times”). WELLINGTON, Last Night. At a farewell luncheon, tendered to him to-day by the Wellington Manufacturers ’ Association, Mr A. E. Man* der dealt with four points in regard to the administration of the Industrial Efficiency Act. The first matter was one to which, said Mr Mander, he had made reference a few weeks ago. He had challenged tho Minister to deny that officers and clerks of the Department of Industries and Commerce were required to report upon the efficiency and the management of various industries and business concerns; but such reports were not disclosed to the firms reported upon, so that these firms were given no opportunity of correcting or refuting them. In other words, industries and businesses were being judged largely on the strength of secret reports. Such a practice, Mr Mander declared, was contrary to all sound principles of justice in public administration. Hearings “In Camera.” The second point was the practice of the Bureau of Industry hearing cases entirely “in camera.” Admittedly certain types of evidence in regard to business must be treated as confidential. But where there were conflicting interests involved and the Bureau was required to make a decision among the claims put forward by competing or opposing parties, surely it was wrong that any interested party should be denied admittance when the opposing party was submitting his case. A similar procedure in any court of law would be unthinkable. Yet that was the position to-day in regard to the Bureau of Industry. What an outcry there would be if the same procedure were introduced in the Supreme Court or the Arbitration Court. Too Large a Bureau. The next matter to which Mr. Mander referred was the sizo of the bureau. The manufacturers had urged that the bureau should consist of four members, two representing the public and two representing the industry. The Government had not agreed to this. However, before the Industrial Efficiency Bill _ | was introduced in Parliament, the Minister (Mr. Sullivan) had assured the Manufacturers’ Federation that he would keep the number as small as possible, and indicated that the number of members he had in mind was not . more than seven or eight at the outside. This definite assurance was given to the manufacturers as part of the general understanding arrived at, on the strength of which they agreed to accept the Bill. Further positive assurances were given by the Minister to the House of Representatives when the Bill was being debated in Parliament, Mr. Sullivan repeatedly assuring the House that although he would not make a statutory limit, he had no intention of appointing a bureau of more than seven or eight members. Even that would have been too many; yet actually he appointed no fewer than fourteen.

The size of the bureau, said Mr. Mander, was really important. What was wanted was a compact quasijudieal body devoting its whole time to the consideration of these industrial and commercial matters. It would even have been an advantage to appoint a Judge or a Magistrate as chairman. But the present bureau, of fourteen busy part-time members, was open to every kind of criticism. Indeed it could be said that, instead of arriving at judicial decisions based on thorough-ly-tested evidence given on oath in open court, the present * 4 fourteenmember* * bureau and the staff of the department was a centre of lobbying and wire-pulling like that which went on with Ministers and Parliament itself. That was probably inevitable with so large a body, especially when the secretariat were also interviewing applicants privately as was the practice to-day. A Case Quoted. The last matter dealt with by Mr. Mander was a recent decision of the bureau in issuing licences to manufacture asbestos-cement products. One of the applicants was a New Zealand company consisting of a group of experienced New Zealand business men, who had arranged with a successful Australian concern to supply all necessary technical assistance in launching the industry here. The bureau rejected that application, and granted the licence to an Australian firm which proposed to establish a factory in New Zealand operated by a subsidiary company with a certain proportion of local capital. The significant feature was the reason given by the bureau for its decision. This was that the Australian company, because it was actually manufacturing in Australia, was better equipped to establish the industry in New Zealand.

“If that decision is to become a precedent,’* Mr. Mander observed, “the bureau might as well announce at once that, so far as any projects to establish new industries are concerned, no New Zealanders need apply. Obviously in every case it will be found that there is some overseas company which is already operating a factory in some other part of the world, and, in the words of the bureau, it will therefore be ‘better equipped’ to start the new industry in New Zealand. What an outlook for enterprising New Zealanders!”