INDUSTRIAL PLAN

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24605, 13 May 1941, Page 6

INDUSTRIAL PLAN

FOOTWEAR FACTORIES MINISTER’S CLAIM DISPUTED METHOD OF VOTING ANALYSED (P.A.) INVERCARGILL, May 12. Commenting to-day on a statement telegraphed from Nelson in which the Minister of Industries and Commerce (Mr D, G. Sullivan) stated that the footwear industry had by a majority vote decided to operate under an industrial plan, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr S. G. Holland) said that it was both mischievous and misleading. Any person reading the Minister’s statement would conclude that the majority of the firms engaged in the footwear industry had voted for working under the plan, whereas, in fact, considerably fewer than half of the footwear proprietors had voted in its favour.

Mr Sullivan, Mr Holland said, was well aware of that fact. The public was entitled to expect Ministers to tell the whole story and to give the public the whole of the facts. The reason why Mr Sullivan did not do so on this occasion was obvious. He did not wish publicly to disclose the fact that considerably fewer than half of the factory proprietors had voted in favour of the industrial plan. Full Details Wanted “ When a vote is submitted to an industry under ,the provisions of the Act,” Mr Holland explained, “ this vote is taken under two headings. First, a vote is taken of the proprietors engaged in the industry concerned, and in the footwear industry the .majority of the factory proprietors did not vote in favour of the plan. Xbe votes, are also counted on the basis of the number of employees engaged in the industry, and on this counting a very small majority was obtained, but the Minister was silent on this fact. “I am sure the public would be interested to know the Lull details of the voting by the footwear industry,” Mr Holland said, “ and I accordingly invite Mr Sullivan to publish the following 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 the number of employees, engaged in the industry; (d) the percentage of votes not recorded in favour of the plan according to the employees engaged in the industry. An Unfair Provision " The voting recorded in. this instance draws public attention to a most unfair provision, against which strong protests were made- when Bill was before the House,” Mr-Holland . concluded.’ “It is clearly intended to operate against the smaller factories and in favour of the-big employer, as one employer with, say,, 501 workers can out-vote 20 employers with 500 workers. In such a case as this, the Minister would be far from justified in stating that the industry had by a majority vote decided to support working under a plan.”