LICENSING CREATES TRADE MONOPOLY

Chronicle (Levin), 23 September 1946, Page 5

LICENSING CREATES TRADE MONOPOLY

-Press Association

-4>» DISCLOSURES IN COURT SHOE MANUFACTURERS FINED

By Telegraph—

WELLINGTON, Hept. 21. '*lt slioeks tlie eonscienee tliat i> •iioall eoueeru tliat is endcavouriog t(. lill this ga]» between tlie publie need uul the supplv is refused a lieeoco In i comiuittee of its eompet itors and then Dioseeution for a criminal oll'ence f(o whai it has done, " said Air. R. llardu Bovs iu tlie A1 agistratc 's Gourt yestei 'ay when he appeared on bchalf of the \e» Footwear Company, Ltd., Petone \ho were ehargod with manufacturiiq under the Industrial Eilieieney Aci . The information was laid by thBureau of Industry. Air. W. R. Birks, who eondueted tio •roseeutioji, stated that the timi intend 1 to make 2U0 jiairs of sandais a week It had applied in August, 1945. for ; lieenoe, whieh had been refused. It had applied again in December last, am had again been refused. In reply to a quostiou by tlie Magis trate, Air. II. J. Thompson, Air. Ilanlii doys said that saies had been lnaih ■fter the application had been refuseu He said there had been souie mis understanding owing to a letter goin^ istray advising the firui that it hau •een refused. Air. Hardie Boys quoted at length i■itateinent whieh appeared in th( Christeliureh Star-Sun last week. It reported Air. J. A. Rodge, formev senioi inspeetor of footwear in Cbristcliurel for the Department of Industries aiu 'ommerce, as saving: "The footwear industry in tlils country is a lieensed industry and, a: sueli, is under the eontro'l of the Depart ment of Industries and Commerce whieh is responsible for the issoe oi alloeations for each type of footweai lo eaeli lieensed footwear manu faclurer. " For a re'eent; 35-Whqk period thi , D ep a r tmeut Mr '.Fo r ... "pf pd-ihs tion from thesei Ji;oe#pi(I - •upply of 84 kf,T$Q foo-twear, wliieh dhe/udeftv'^tl "cl^iMren - •if sehoo] age.. Th e ac f ual "Aprficlo htjo r . was 2S7,4Fip pai'ra, shqwing. Ti. islicffl^ige , for Ihe periofl; df'iT,2,2(ii)'fpb:ifsFJ''.'i ' C "No explanation was given r'or' this ■Jiortage; lnit there are many reasons. The first is the desire of the Footweai Manufaeturers' Federation to keep tlie industry a elose nionopoly. Alan\ members of this federation are holding lieenees to manufacture bovs' and girls' footwear, but do not make; and have not for years, made use of these lieenees. "Yet, when applieations are made for a lie.ene.e from without the federatibn, that applieation is not approved. "The whole set-up of= tho.vFdptwear Tndustrial Plan Committee is detinitelv not right, and is the eause of the frustration of those who desire to start in this industry for themselves. This committee is eomposed of eertain members of the Footwear Manufaeturers' Federation, and all applieations for new or additional lieenees must come before it. This committee, in turn, advises tlie Bureau of Industry of its reeommendations. "T need seareely point out how j unjust this procedure is when tlie j manufacturers are appointed bota j judge and jui'v when eonsidering an applieation for the right of a man to enter into a business whieh would eon ; fer upon him the right of being a eoin petitor in the same industry. "A favourable recommendation would be against the poliev of this eommittee henee the first step towards more pro tluetion is the delie.ensing of this in lustrv, or at least all those who hold lieenees for children 's footwear. Thi" ivould open the door for honest eom letition from those who are readv anJ ivilling to produce this class of foot vear. _ ; "An altcrnative to -delieensing would ' ie to disband the Footwear Tndustria1 : "•lan Committee and allow the oflieials 1 n eharge of the Bureau of Industry, \

together with those of the Footwear and Leather Bection, to deeide on all applieations for lieenees. "This could be done with the assistance of a teehnieal adviser, and certainly not a teehnieal adviser who inight have a link with the Footwear A[anufaeturers ' Federation. The Atagistrate iinposed a fine of £15 aiul eosts.