CONTROL OF INDUSTRY

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 111, 27 May 1937, Page 7

CONTROL OF INDUSTRY

-Press Asaociatlon.)

■ ■ .* 1,' > 1 - The Efficiency Act Under Fire MR. MANDER'S VIEWS

Teleampn-

I WELLINGTON, Last NightAt a farewell luncheon tendered to to-day by the Wellington Manufacturers' Association, Mr A. E. Manider 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 chaJlenged the Minister to deny that officers and clerks of the Department of Industries jand Commerce were required to report tupon the efficiency and the management of various industries and business coneerns; but such reports were not disclosed to the flrms reported upon, so that these firms were given no opportunity of correcting or refnting them. In other words, industries and businesses were being judged largely on the styength of secret reports. Such a ipractice, Mr Mander declared, was conjtrary to all sound principles of justice jin public administration. The second point was the practice of | |the Bureau of Industry hearing cases' jentirqly "in camera." Admittedly certain types of evidence in regard to ^business must be treated as confidential. Bnt where there were conflicting intterests involved and the Bnreau was required tq make a decision among the claima put forward by competing or iQpposing parties, surely it was wrong ithat .any interested party . should be 'denied admittanee when the oppqsing party was submitting his case, A aimi- v ilar proeedure in any court of law would jbe unthinkaWe, Yet that was the jposition to-day is regard to the Bureau jof Industry. What an outcry there' Iwoul.d be if the same proeedure were introduced in the Suprem'e Court or the lArbitration Court, The next matter to which Mr, Mander ireferfed was the si?Q of the bureau. The manufacturers had urged that the ibureau ehould oonsist of four members, two representing the public and two jrepresenting the industry. The Govern;ment had not agreed to this. However, before the Industrial Efficiency BiUJ was introdueed in Parliament, the Minister (Mr. Sulljvan) had assurcd the 'Manufacturers' Federatien that he would keep the number as small as •possible, and indieatgd that- the number of members he had in mind was not more than seven or eight at.the ontIside. This definita assurance was given [to the manufacturers as parfc of ihe igeneral understanding arrived at, qn ,'the strength of which they agreed to accept the Bili, Further positjve assurnnces were giyen by the ' Minister to ■the House of Representatives when the 'Bili was bqing debated in Parliament, Mr, Sullivan repeatedly assnring the House that although he would not make a statutory limit, he had no intention jof appointing a bnreau of more than' iseven or eight members. Fven that ■would have been too many; yet actuaily he appointad no fewer than fourteen.

The size of tho bureau, aaid Mr. Mander, was really important. What was wanted was a eoropact quasijudical body devoting its whole time to ,the conaideration of these industrial "and commercial matteri. It Trould even [have been an advantaga to appoint a {Judge or a Magistrate as chairman. iBut the present bureau, of fourteen jbusy paTt-time members, was open to jevery kind of criticism. Indeed jt [could be said that, instead of arriving |at judicial decisions based on thorough-ily-tested evidence given on oath in jopen eourt, the present "fourteenjmember" 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 to-day. The last matter dealt with by Mr. Mander was a recent deeisian of the ibureau in issuing licenees to manufacIture asbestos-cement products. One of ithe applicants was a New Zealand company consisting of a group of experienced New Zealand business men, who had arranged with & succeseful Australian coneern to supply all necessary teehnical assistance in lannching the industry here. The bureau rejected that application, and" granted the lieence to an Australian firra which prqposed to establish a faetory in New Zealand operated by a subsidiary company with. a certain proportion of local capital, The signjficant feature was the xeason given by the bureau for its decision. This was that the Australian company, because it was actuaily .manufacturing in Australia, was better equipped to "establish the industry in New Zealand. "If that decision is to become a preeedent," 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 Zehlandera need apply. Obviously in 1 avery case it will be found thit there is some overseas company which is already operating a faetory in some other part of the world, and, in the words of the bureau, it will ther6fore be 'better equipped' to start the new industry in New Zealand. What an outlook for cnterprising New Zealandersl "