THE LABOUR DEPARTMENT.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 12202, 24 May 1905, Page 5

THE LABOUR DEPARTMENT.

m MR TREGEAR REPLIES TO MR ANDERSON. ' — F.CI-X. TO "the rji_ss.") ' WELLINGTON, May 23. Mr Edward Tregear, Secretary for Labour, writes in to-night's "Post" as follows:—"In your leader of tho 17th inst.. you quote, without remark, sentences from a, speech lately made by Mr Anderson, Chairman of the Employers' Association in Christchurch, and thus probably givo the portions quoted a publicity they otherwise would nob havo obtained. One of tho sentences particularised runs as follows: 'It was true that the Department of Labour, juggling with figures, would say that the number of factories had increased, but they were not honest enough to show what would be the position if a definition of a factory was limited to what it was ten years ago.' Tho accusation of jugling and dishonesty ia exceedingly offensive to officials who havo no personal interest in the figures dealt'with, and (with permission) I will show that the statistics given are honest enough. First, however, allow, mc to observe that wi the workers employed, in factories have to be accounted for by fee* paid by the employers through the Inspectors of Factories into the Treasury, and so strictly checked, there is little temptation to jugglo unless one courts serious trouble. Ten years ago tho Act of 1894 was already in force, arid the definition of a factory gives, in that Act has never varied or been widened since. I never give comparative factory figures earlier than 1894, lest critics like Mr. Anderson should say 'Your increased figures arose from tho scope of the Act now being wider.' In 1891, « place where three persons wero engaged in manufacture was a factory, and in 1894 it was made two persona. Bub Binco 1894 there has been practically no alteration. Tho increases both in factories and in factory hands have been wonderfully steady and regular. In 1895 there wero 29,879 workers in factories, and the following years run thus:—32.3B7, 36.918, 39,672, 45,305. 48,938, 53,460, 65,395, 59,047, and 63..965—the latter numbers being those of'lnst year. The number of factories ako increased as steadily, vis:—ln 1896 4647, nnd in the following years, 5177, 5601, 6286. 0438, 6744, 7203, 7675, and 8373 in 1904. I think this is sufficient confirmation of the statement that the factories and factory hands have increased, and there i_ not tho slightest reason lor the Department to juggle for results. If Mr Anderson, in saying that wo 'were not honest enough to show what would be tho position if tho definition of a factory was limited to what it was ten years ago,' mears that this Department _honld supply, besides the real figures, others showing all sorts of hypothetical cases, few will agree with him. We cannot say how many factories there would be if employers had to do tho work themselves, nor other 'might have been*.' Wo have not tho tirno for such fantastic honesty. Should he say that he means that the small factories employing two havo increased, but not those employing three, I reply that tho whole tendency of the later Factories Act.hns been to break down (by forbidding -lib-contracting by labelling—'home made' goods, etc) the tiny, dirty, domestic worksho, and tc send workers into well liphtod" and well ventilated rooms, where their work and their health could both be better cared for."