BUREAU OF INDUSTRY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23201, 27 May 1937, Page 10

BUREAU OF INDUSTRY

ADMINISTRATION CRITICISED MR MANDER RETURNS TO THE ATTACK ALLEGATIONS OF LOBBYING RECENT DECISIOiN CONDEMNED (Special to Daily Times) WELLINGTON. May 28. At a farewell luncheon tendered to him to-day by the Wellington Manufacturers' Association, Mr A. E. Mander dealt with four points in regard to the administration of the Industrial Efficiency Act. These four points he earnestly commended to the attention, not only of manufacturers and the business community, but also of the general public. The first matter, Mr Mander said. was one to which he had made reference a few weeks ago. He had challenged the Minister of Industries and Commerce (Mr D. G. Sullivan) 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. PRACTICE CONDEMNED The second point, Mr Mander said, was the practice of the Bureau of Industry in hearing cases entirely in camera. Admittedly certain types of evidence in regard to business had to 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. There might be a case in which a licence was applied for, but there were two - rival applicants for it. while a third party was opposed to any licences being granted. The bureau would then hear the three parties separately; but no party would be given an opportunity to hear or examine the evidence put forward bv the others. Moreover, the public would be excluded throughout. Yet, said Mr Mander, these were cases in which scores of thousands of pounds might be at stake for the parties concerned. What an outcry there would be if the same procedure were introduced in the Supreme Court or the Arbitration Court, and if each party there were shut out of court while the opposing party was putting forward its case! UNWIELDY BODY

■ The next matter to which Mr Mander referred was the sh:e of the bureau. The manufacturers had urt>ed that the bureau should consist of four members, two representing the public and two representing industry. The Government had not agreed to this. However, before the Industrial Efficiency Bill was introduced in Parliament, the Minister assured the Maunfacturers' Federation that he would keep the number as small as possible, and indicated that the number of members he had in mind whs 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 14. The size of the bureau, Mr Mander said, was really important. What v/as wanted was a compact, quasi-judicial 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 14 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 thoroughly-tested evidence given on oath in open court, the present " 14-member" bureau and the staff of the department were centres of lobbying and wire-pulling, like that which went on with Ministers and Parliament itself. That was Erobably inevitable with so large a ody, especially when the secretariat was also interviewing applicants privately, as was the practice to-day. RECENT DECISION The last matter dealt with Mr Mander was a recent decision of the bureau in issuing licences to manufacture asbestos-cement products. One of the applications 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 ali necessary technical assistance in launching the industry here. Tbv bureau rejected that application and granted the licence to an Australian fh-m, 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 factorv 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!"