INDUSTRIES AND LABOUR LEGISLATION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CVI, Issue 12586, 22 August 1901, Page 4

INDUSTRIES AND LABOUR LEGISLATION.

The two stock “ arguments ” against the labour legislation of ttac present Government are that it is driving capital out of the country, and that it will not stand the test of a period of -depression. The ether day we were told that a wealthy London syndicate intended to invest its money in the Argentine rather than in Australasia because of cur labour restrictions, though it appeared subsequently that there were other factors to be considered, eudb, for instance, as the distance -of this country from the London market. We dealt with that incident fully a few weeks.ago. Similarly, our Conservative friends assured us that a well-known Dunedin firm was folding its tents preparatory to leaving, New Zealand, presumably because of the restrictions imposed on industry in this colony. " When the truth was told it was seen that the prospect of a hostile Australian tariff was the chief reason for the transference of this firm’s business to New South Wales. We- regret this incident more than, the other, because tanning and felhnongering are trades which should pros-, per in New Zealand, and we hope that Mr Barton’s Budget-, when it is published',, will dispel the fears entertained in. this colony of the closing of the Australian market to our products. So far it has not been shown that the legislation l of the present Government has had the effect of crippling a single industry in this country, and when the facts are examined it is evident that there baa been a great and regular expansion of trade while that legislation has been in force. Thus, in Auckland there were thirty-nine more factories in 1900 than in the previous year, in Wellington twentysix more, and in Dunedin twenty-two more, and all other places show a similar increase, the total increase for the colony being 306. But we bave an even better guide in the number of persons employed in the factories registered. The usual custom has been to compare the figures for the first and last years of a decennial period, a misleading comparison., because the definition of a factory has been changed since 1890. There has been no change in this respect, however, since 1895, and the following table^shows the annual increase in the number of bands employed in our factories since that year:—

Total increase , , . , 23,581

There has thus been an increase of 79 per cent iu seven years, a sufficient answer, we should 'think, to the charge that Liberal labour legislation has crippled the industries of the colony. The annual report of the Department of Labour speaks of the unemployed difficulty as having practically disappeared, and in the few cases in which assistance has been required the applicants have been speedily found work with private employer's. Last year was "marked by unusual prosperity in business,” and in spite of the lamentations and warnings of political Jeremiahs we can discover no signs of the “slump” which is said to he threatening the colony. The money market, it is true, is tight at present, and wool is at an unprecedentedly low figure, but we may reasonably expect relief in both directions in the near future. The attack that is being made upon labour legislation and the . Labour Unions is sufficiently noisy, but blank ammunition is never very destructive. It is possible that by injudicious action the workers may estrange the sympathy of a considerable section of the public, and may bring the law into disrepute; but the soundest and ’ most* beneficent statute" J may

suffer in that way. Reasonably administered, the labour laws of New Zealand will never imped© the progress of industry.

Year. Factory-workers. Increase. 1895 .... 29.879 1896 , . , , 82,387 2,508 1897 , . , , 36,918 4,531 1898 , . , . 39,672 2,754 1899 , , , J 45,305 5,633 1990 , ; , , 48,938 3,633 1901 , . . . 53,460 4,522