SECRET REPORTS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23161, 10 April 1937, Page 14

SECRET REPORTS

MR MANDER RETURNS TO CHARGE PREVIOUS ASSERTION REPEATED INDUSTRIES NOT HEARD (Special to Daxlk Times) WELLINGTON, April 9. “I do not wish to get at crosspurposes with the Minister, who, I know, is honestly trying to do his best for the manufacturing industry,” said Mr A. E. Mander, retiring secretary of the New Zealand Manufacturers’ Federation, in a statement commenting upon the reply made by the Minister of Industries and Commerce (Mr G. Sullivan) to his protest against the use of secret reports by the Government and the Bureau of 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 I have drawn attention. “I made a clear, definite, and reasoned criticism of the practice of Ministers and the Bureau of Industry making decisions largely on the strength of secret reports prepared by departmental officers,” Mr Mander continued. “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. lam content to leave it for the public to read my statement and Mr Sullivan’s reply side by side. “The Minister’s outburst regarding the integrity and ability of his departmental officers,” Mr Mander continued, “is undoubtedly well meant, but quite beside the point. Presumably the integrity of the public servants is about equal to that of the legal profession, the business community, or any other representative body of New Zealanders — in other words, generally good, but weak in some cases. The same is true of the level of ability in the public service. There is no reason for either politicians or public servants to develop a ‘ superiority complex.’ With regard to the rest of the community of New Zealand people as a whole and of the public servants as a representative sample of them, we are bound to recognise that we are a mixed lot. “ In my statement, hOweyer, I expressly refrained from raising the question of the ability of departmental officers to make reliable reports on the efficiency or the management of business,” Mr Mander added. “ I expressly excluded that point because it was irrelevant to the particular question with which I was dealing. I was not referring to the conclusions arrived at, the decision made or the judgment passed upon the industry. I was referring to the report upon which such conclusion or judgment was based. If the Government or the bureau, largely on the strength of a secret departmental report, makes a decision adverse to a particular industry or firm the clear fact is that the industry has been condemned on evidence which it has not seen and which the firm has not been given an opportunity to correct or refute. It is a pity that Mr Sullivan does not see this point. It is really much more important than worrying whether members of the clerical division of the public service should or should not be referred to as public service clerks, or whether undertakers ought not in future to be known as morticians. Surely the new snobbery has not decreed that the word “ clerk ” must now be regarded as a term of disparagement.”

THE ASSOCIATION’S VIEW STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT (Per United Press Association) AUCKLAND, April 9. A statement that he did not wish to become involved in any controversy as a result of Mr A. L. Mander’s attack on 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 he wished to comment upon only one remark by Mr Mander and upon a press reference to that remark. In his statement given on his retirement from the secretaryship of the Manufacturers Federation, Mr Mander had said that he had come upon 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.