ARBITRATION ACT

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 288, 5 September 1928, Page 13

ARBITRATION ACT

PROTECTING THE FARMER

CONTINUANCE OF LEGISLATION PROPOSAL DEBATED The proposal of the Government to extend for another 12 months last year’s legislation preventing the making of awards, except by mutual consent, with respect to workers in the fanning industries, was debated by ti e House of. Represontatlvis last night. Moving the second reading of the Arbitration Amendment Bill, the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. .1. G. Coates) said that the primary producer was nervous in regard to industrial matters : he found costs were fixed without reference to the fluctuating movements of the prices of his products, and he would resent any legislation prescribing what he had to pay. Possibly the farm workers themselves would object. They realised that the primary producer’s living was dependent upon his exportable surplus and the prices it produced ovcisea. Whether the primary producer was doing all that was essential in regard to accommodation, Mr. Coates was unable to say, but as a general rule he thought there was a hearty eo-qperative spirit between the rural employer and employee. Some people held the view that the Arbitration Court was cutting right across that possibility of the extension of that spirit of understanding as between employer and employee. By suggesting the setting up of councils in New Zealand, some of the Labour organisations had shown their willingness to propose some methods to effect closer co-operation between the two interests. Referring to the next National Industrial Conference, the Prime Minister said he believed the country had everything to gain by bringing the representatives of both sides together round the conference table again. Unless there were industrial peace and understanding it would be impossible for the country to progress at the rate we desired. If party politics could be placed on one side and the industrial captains and their workers allowed to meet round the table on equal terms and settle by far the greater portion of their difficulties by argument and reasoning, it was entirely desirable and a higher ideal than having the disputes taken to the Arbitration Court. There was a strong body of opinion in the House which favoured a drastic amendment of the Arbitration Court, but caution anti tolerance had prevailed, the rights of the, worker being recognised. The Labour View. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. H. E. Holland) said that the tendency to-day was to fix a minimum wage, below which it was impossible to live. It was a great mistake that the House was not allowed to conclude the discussion on the report of the ■ Industrial Conference before the Bill was brought down. He maintained that there was no comparison between the attitude the Sheepowners’ Federation was taking up and the attitude taken up in connection with the flax industry. There was always a readiness to justify a breach on the part of the employers, but he had never yet heard of a breach on the part of the employees being justified. He hoped that in future the employers would adopt more conciliatory methods than they had done in the past. He intended to support the Bill. No Violation of Act. Sir John Luke (Wellington North) said he did not see how anybody could oppose the Bill, because it was simply a re-enactment of legislation which had been passed last session. If it were passed there would be no violation of the Arbitration Act, and he trusted that it would not be discussed in a way which would prejudice the spirit of harmony at the second Industrial Conference. Mr. E. A. Ransom (Pahiatua) said it would be very regrettable-if the flax industry were allowed to go out of existence because of its inability to pay wages in a period of depression. If the true spirit of co-operation existed there would be no necessity to approach the Arbitration Court. There was no doubt that there was a desire to do what was right and fair to each other; that fadt was very noticeable at the recent conference. Fortunately, it was being realised more and more that industrial strife meant a great loss, not only to the individual, but also to the nation. What was being done b.v the Government to bring about industrial peace in New Zealaiffi was a step in the right direction, and after all, it was only in keeping with what had been done in wether parts of the world. The Paid Agitator. Mr. W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne) said it was a good thing that another effort should be made to bring the parties together. There was no question that industrial peace depended on conciliation and co-operation. The paid agitator- was the most dangerous element. Mr. J. A. Nash (Palmerston): That is the trouble., Mr. Lysnar: I venture to say that if he were eliminated 50 per cent, of the trouble would disappear. Mr. W. E. Parry (Auckland Central) : What about the person who .holds his wool ? Mr. Lysnar: More credit to him if he holds his wool. (Laughter.) A voice: And to him who keeps his wool on. (Renewed laughter.) Mr. Speaker: Order! Mr. Lysnar said that the manner in which the Sheep Owners’ Federation had fought the last shearers’ award was no credit to any organisation. Mr. Nash: Do you have any trouble in Gisborne with the shearers? Mr. Lysnar: Only when the paid agitator comes round. Mr. P. Fraser (Wellington Central) : Do they stir you up?

Mr. Lysnar said that about five per cent, of the men in New Zealand were disturbing the other 95 per cent. It was up to the Leader of the Opposition to tell the men that they must give value for their money. Mr. J. A. Lee (Auckland East) : Do you say that eight out of nine men are no good? , , Mr. Lysnar: In some bunches, yes, A member: One is in Gisborne. Mr. Lysnar said that too many people were taking up in-door occupations. They did not want to take their coats ° ff Mr. Parry : You ought to put that tiT music. (Laughter). Mr. J. McCombs (Lyttelton) said he could not commend the intervention of the Prime Minister in the flax-milling dispute, which should have been taken to the proper tribunal—the Arbitration Court. If Mr, Coates hud a rj{?ht to in* tervene in the Ilax-millinS dispute, he should also have intervened in the sheepowners’ dispute. The flax industry should be prepared to take the good with the bl *Mr. W. A. Veitch (Wanganui) believed that to abandon arbitration would inevitably lead to industrial strife. New Zealand had nothing to be ashamed of, but on the other hand, she bad much to be proud of so fur as the settling of disputes was concerned. There was a danger of the Arbitration Court being crippled as the result of legislation. Much as the promotion of a better understanding between employee and employer was desirable, there must be a final arbiter. A member: They might decline to come together Mr. Veitch: “Yes, but I believe in most cases they would be agreeable.’ It was the duty of Parliament to decide upon a practicable method for the settlemeat of disputes. He would be very sorry if the Arbitration Court were abolished. , Mr. J. A. Lee (Auckland East) contended that no question demonstrated the cleavage between the various parties in the House more than the regulation of wages. Immediately wages were mentioned there was a clash. I hey had heard a good deal about the glories of conciliation. That was all right in its place, but if there were no Arbitration Court the workers would suffer when conciliation proceedings failed. Primo Minister’s Reply. Replying to the debate, the Prime Minister expressed gratification that the Leader of the Opposition saw fit to support the Government in the effort . to bring about more harmonious relations between employers and the employees. Industrial strife was a serious matter for any country. The tone of the debate augured well for the future. Earlier in the evening Mr. McCombs had suggested that it.was for political purposes that the legislatohi was being forced upon the House. “Nothing of' the kind,” declared the Prime Minister. M c had a majority for the last three years to do it, but as I have already stated, I would not be a party to forcing down "'Mr! McCombs: What is your record since 1921 ? The Prime Minister said that the standard of the workers was never higher than it was to-day. lhe outlook for them was better than it had been for many years past. Mr. McCombs: What, at 9s. and l~s. a da The Prime Minister: That is the usual misrepresentation of the bon. member. It is impossible for him to be fair. A member: It is not in him. The Prime Minister said that 9s. and 12s. a day was not the standard wage. Mr. McCombs: I agree with you. They are not wages. . The Prime Minister: “That is a matter of opinion. I can tell you quite, definitely what would happen if we paid the standard rates to the unemployed, lhe cost would be multiplied five or six times. The Leader of the Opposition had stated that if an industry could not pay its way it should close down. Mr. P. Fraser (Wellington Central): I heard the Attorney-General say that, too. The PrimAMinister: It has to be qualified. Mr. Holland: I did not express myself in the crude way you have pointed out. The Prime Minister: I did not interpret it that way. It is not until an industry has been on trial for a number of years that we should consider closing it down. Mr. Fraser: Sir Francis Bell laid it down, and he is not a Socialist. The Prime Minister: “Sir Francis Bell is as advanced in his views as any member of this House.” That there should be conciliation seemed to be the spirit of the world to-day. He believed that the worker was as well educated us any other section of the community. The present iGovernnient had in no sense attemptedlfo hamper that education; rather had it sought to enhance the opportunities for it. The Bill was read a second time. “NO FRIEND OF THE COURT” MR. VEITCH AND MR. HOLLAND Replying to an interjection by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. 11. E. Holland) in the House of Representatives last night, Mr. W. A. Veitch (Wanganui) said that Mr. Holland was the. most severe critic in the House and the most sensitive while under criticism himself. Mr. Holland : Only when I have been misrepresented. . Mr. Veitch: “The hon. member is again entitled to his own opinion on that point.” Mr. Holland was no friend of the Arbitration Court, he added. NEW BANK BILL z PASSED BY HOUSE / The London and New Zealand Bank Ltd. Bill was passed b.v the House of Representatives yesterday. The third reading of the measure was agreed to without discussion.