FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY

Manawatu Standard, Volume LXI, Issue 138, 13 May 1941, Page 4

FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY

MINISTER’S STATEMENT. CRITICISM BY MB HOLLAND. (Press Assn.) INVERCARGILL, Alay 12. I Commenting to-day oil a. statement telegraphed lrom Nelson in which the Alnuster of Industries and Commerce (lion. 11. G. Sullivan) said that the lootwear industry llad, by a majority vote, decided to operate under an industrial plan, .the Leader of the Opposition (Air 8. G. Holland) said that it was both mischievous and misleading. Any person reading the Miniater s statement would conclude that a majority of the firms engaged, in the footwear industry had voted for working under the plan, whereas in lact considerably less than half oi the lootwear factory proprietors had voted in its favour. Mr Sullivan, said Alr Holland, was well aware of the lact. .The public were entitled to expect Alinisters to tell ihe whole story and to giro the public all the facts, because the Alinister knew the full facts, whereas the public did not. The reason Mr Sullivan did not do so on this occasion was obvious, because he did not wish publicly to disclose the fact that considerably loss than half of the factory proprietors had voted in favour of an industrial plan. “When a vote is submitted to an industry under the provisions of the Industrial Efficiency Act.” explained Air Holland, “this vote is taken under two headings. The first vote is taken of proprietors engaged in the industry concerned, and in the footwear industry a majority of factory proprietors did not vote in favour ot the plan. Voters are also counted on the basis of the number of employees engaged ill the industry and on this counting a very small majority was , obtained, out the Alinister was silent in explaining this lact. “I am sure the public would be interested in knowing the full details of the voting by the lootwear industry and I accordingly invite Air Sullivan to publish the lollowing information: —(a) The percentage of proprietors entitled to vote who voted in favour of the plan; (b) the percentage of proprietors entitled to vote who did not vote in favour of the plan ; (c) the percentage of votes recorded in favour of the plan according to employees engaged in the industry; (d) the percentage of votes not recorded in favour ol tlie plan according to employees engaged in the industry. “The voting recorded in this instance draws public- attention to a most unfair provision, against which strong protests were made when the j Bill was before the House. It is clearly intended to operate against smaller factories and in favour of the big employer, as one employer employing, say, 501 workers can out-vote 20 employers employing 500 workers. In such a case 36 this the Minister would be far from justified in stating that the industry had by a majority vote decided to support working under plan.”