Partiality Alleged in Administration of Act

Manawatu Times, Volume 70, Issue 266, 10 November 1945, Page 6

Partiality Alleged in Administration of Act

Boot Manufacturer Who Was Refused License

(Per Press Association.) AUCKLAND, Nov. 9.

The allegation that the Industrial Efficiency Act, 1936, was being administered to the benefit of the larger manufacturers was made in the case of Ronald Arthur Campbell (Mr. Grant) who was charged before Mr. J. H. Luxford, S.M., with manufacturing footwear without a licence.

The prosecution was brought by the Department of Industries and Commerce. For that department, Mr. Rosen said various persons had been manufacturing footwear without holding a licence prescribed by the Act. An officer of the department called at defendant’s shop in Pitt Street and purchased a pair of lady’s sandals, which lie admitted he had manufactured. He said his application for a licence had been refused.

Mr. Grant said the department had permitted defendant to carry on as a bespoke manufacturer for a number of years. In 1939 he had a staff of approximately nine and his turnover was between £6OO and £7OO a month. After serving in the Forces for two years, he applied several times for a licence, but was refused. Throughout the whole period since 1939, the department knew ho was committing a breach of law, as it would have been folly to jshut him up owing to the “tragic” shortage of footwear.

Evidence was given by Claud William Williams, former secretary of the Footwear Utilisation. Manpower Committee, that cobblers could not participate in their trade and still remain law-abiding citizens owing to the Industrial Efficiency Act, which was being administered solely in favour of the larger manufacturers. He knew of a small trader in the city being refused labour, because the department believed that any concern making under 2000 pairs a week was not an economical unit. There was a definite shortage of footwear in the country and most of the shoddy articles were manufactured by the ‘ ‘ big people. ” “I regard these allegations as very serious and will grant an adjournment if Mr. Rosen wishes to communicate with his department for instructions,” said the Magistrate. Called by Mr. Rosen, David Douglas Wilson, an officer of the department, said the suggestion that the department had been lax about bringing prosecutions was not correct. It had been known for some time that some traders were manufacturing without a licence, but had been unable to get sufficient e\idenco to lay a prosecution, in the present case the facts had taken 18 months to come to light. Referring to the shortage of footwear, witness said that, when New Zealand was committed to supply footwear to countries in .the Eastern Group, the larger concerns were told what the}' were to make by the Factory Controller. His power still operated and in the meantime the department had to see that the factories concerned were protected. Defendant was fined £5.