"CLASS TYRANNY."

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 113, 14 May 1936, Page 10

"CLASS TYRANNY."

A WARNING GIVEN. HANDICAPS TO INDUSTRY. LESSON FROM AUSTRALIA. (By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, Wednesday. The opinion was expressed in the House to-night by Mr. W. J. Poison (National, Stratford) that the Factories Amendment Bill would create greater abuses than any it sought to remedy. No member of the Opposition, he«said, wanted to see worse conditions in industry, but the bill went much further than the question of conditions and hours. It was not a question of what was best for the industry; it was a question of what was best for the country as a whole. They had to see that this kind of legislation did not develop into an attempt to exploit the employers. It seemed as if the Government were considering the interests of class alone. If that was its intention it would find that it was doing a singular dis-service to the country.

There was such a thing as the law of diminishing returns, continued Mr. Polson, and when the Minister talked about reducing hours and increasing wages he overlooked that, and also overlooked the experience of one of the Australian States where Labour had embarked on a similar jiolicy. "Look at Queensland," ho said. "As a result of the high imposts placed 011 industry there the number of factories has been reduced by one-fifth, while in the rest of the Commonwealth,'where more reasonable conditions prevailed, there has been an increase of one-third. I suggest to the Government that the Queensland experience might easily be the experience of New Zealand if it persists in going too fast." Mr. Poison said that one extraordinary provision increased the overtime rate for youths and girls by more than 400 per cent. The effect of that would be to stop rush orders from being undertaken. Outrageous wages also meant outrageous prices. Overseas Competition. Moreover, the bill did not permit employers the opportunity of reorganising their businesses, and the effect would undoubtedly be prejudicial. The increase in costs for the first 12 months—the transition period—was more important than it appeared. Orders would be lost in competition with imported goods. Those orders in many cases depended 011 a 1 per cent margin. The shorter week would increase labour costs by 9 per cent, and there would be a similar increase in the cost of the materials. The proportion of wages to total production costs was considerably greater than the Minister indicated. In New Zealand it was no less than 35 per cent. The result was going to be that industry would be in need of assistance if it was to carry 011.

The stipulation that there was to be no reduction of wages because of the shorter hours would mean that factories would be compelled to reorganise sud(lenly. The employers were placed in the position of defendants, and inspectors and union secretaries should be made to prove their cases. The bill was an instance of class tyranny of a very grave kind. It favoured class without considering the well-being of the country. ilr. Speaker called Mr. Poison to order, ant,l said,!that references of that nature had been ruled out of order. Mr. Poison said that he believed that the Minister himself was anxious to serve the working class and to do his best for them. "We found him as reasonable as the principles that guide him allowed him to be," he added.