CONTROL OF INDUSTRY

Evening Post, Volume CXXIII, Issue 123, 26 May 1937, Page 13

CONTROL OF INDUSTRY

THE EFFICIENCY ACT

ADMINISTRATION CRITICISED At a farewell luncheon tendered to him today by the Wellington Manufacturers' Association, Mr. A. E. Mander 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 the Minister to . deny . that officers and clerks of the Department of Industries/ and Commerce were required tp 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 pro* cedure in any cOurt of law would be unthinkable. Yet that was the position today 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 size of the bureau. The manufacturers had urged that the bureau should' consist -of four members, two representing the public and; two representing 1 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 . sihall 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 JVEinister to the House of Representatives when the 3ill was. being debated in- Parliament, Mr. Sullivan repeatedly assuring the House that although he would not ma.ke 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' tile bureau; said Mr. Mander, was really important. ■'■ What -was wanted was a, compact- quasijudicial body; devoting its whole time to the consideration of these'industrial and comriierciai matters. ; It would even have been an advantage to appoint a Judge'or aMagisfrateas chairman. But the presents 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 thoroughly-tested evidence given on oath in open court, the present "four-teen-member" 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 today. : ■ ;vi . ;;" • ;. 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 experi-enced-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 NewZealand 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 an_ .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 Zealand-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 willtherefore be. 'better equipped to start the new industry in New Zealand. What an outlook for enterprising New Zealanders!"