FOOTWEAR PLAN

Manawatu Standard, Volume LXI, Issue 142, 17 May 1941, Page 6

FOOTWEAR PLAN

REPLY TO MINISTER. ANALYSIS OF VOTING. (Press Assn.; WELLING TON, May 16. in a statement Lhe Leader oi the [ Opposition (Air S. G. Holland) says: “J lie ’.Minister of Jndustr.es and Commerce docs nut enhance his prestige by suggesting that J am hindering the war etiu. t when I draw public attention to his grossly misleading statement concerning the voting on the 1 outwear industrial plan. I strongly resent the insinuation. i invited the Minister to answer lour simple questions and in an attempt to extricate himself from his dilemma he has chosen to twist the figures round. Since the Minister still declines to give tiro public the full facts I shall do so. “llie Industrial Efficiency Act stipulates that no industrial plan shall he brought into force unless the material proposals in it ‘have been approved by a majority of the persons engaged as principals in the industry,’ or ‘by persons employing a majority of the workers engaged in such industry.’ There are 73 employers in the footwear trade of whom only 29 or 39J per cent, of the total voted in favour of the plan. Yet the Alinister would have the public believe that a majority was in favour of the plan—39-2 per cent, is not a majority. On an employee basis 29 employers of 2269 workers (or 50J per cent, of the total) voted in favour of the plan. ‘Tn a nutshell the position is that only 29 employers out of 73 wanted the plan and not 50 per cent, as required by the Act. But because they employ 50J per cent, of the total employees in the industry (not- 53 per cent, as stated by the Alinister) the Alinister considered it near enough for his purposes to say that the plan was wanted by a majority of the industry. 1 am quite prepared to submit this statement to the Auditor-General and abide by his decision whether 1 have stated the facts fully and accurately and to leave the public to judge.”