WORKERS PROTEST

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 73, 19 December 1933, Page 11

WORKERS PROTEST

Change in Insurance Law EARTHQUAKE INJURY Provision of Finance Bill A provision of the Finance Bill which was., introduced into the House of Representatives by the Government on Saturday aims to obviate the payment -of compensation to workers if the injury results from the fall of any building or portion of a building due directly or indirectly to an earthquake, or if the injury is caused by a fire resulting directly or indirectly from an earthquake. In view of this proposed legislation a deputation from* the New Zealand Alliance of Labour waited on the Prime Minister yesterday. There were present Messrs. A. Cook, J. Roberts, F. P. Walsh, and P. M. Butter. The deputation was introduced by Mr. T. Armstrong, M.P. The following report of the proceedings has been supplied to "The Dominion”: — Mr. Roberts stated that the Labour movement of New Zealand was shock-; ed when it saw the report in the Press of the Government’s intention to introduce legislation of this kind by a backdoor method. It was the first time, he said, that the Government of New Zealand had even attempted to introduce legislation which materially affected , the interests of the workers without giivng the trade union movement an opportunity of studying the legislation and giving evidence before a Labour Bills Committee, and while he realised that pressure was being brought to bear upon the Government to nullify the judgment of the Privy Council in connection with the Hawke’s Bay earthquake cases, he was surprised indeed that the Government should submit to that pressure and introduce this legislation during the dying hours of Parliament. The Prime Minister replied that the Government had no intention of defeating the decision of the. Privy Council, but if it was found that a law in New Zealand was unfair to industry, surely the Government had a right to alter it. “Bush-ranging” Legislation. Mr. Roberts, in reply, stated that that might be the case if the provisions of the New Zealand law were different to the English law, but they were not, and those who desired the law altered at the present juncture were simply trying to defeat the decision of the Privy Council. If an alteration in the present law was required, then an amendment should not be passed without due consideration being given by the Government to the viewpoints of the employers and the workers. To push a measure like this through the Finance Bill was simply “bush-rang-ing legislation” which the Government could not justify. He appealed to the Prime Minister to withdraw the legislation, and if an amendment to the Workers’ Compensation Act was desired, this legislation could be introduced next session. That would, give an opportunity to all parties to go fully into the matter, for the workers strongly objected to the Government agreeing to amend the Workers’, Compensation Act by a “back-door” method. Mr.* Walsh said the Government had imposed some very harsh laws on the workers of New Zealand, but ‘the proposal at present before Parliament was the “rawest deal” yet attempted. First, he said, it meant that the Government proposed to amend a law without consulting the organisations of the workers who were affected by it, and second the ,law was being amended at the request of the insurance companies. The Privy Council had given a decision quite recently and immediately that decision was given reports were current throughout the city that the victory for the Labour Movement would be of short duration because the law would be amended in the near future. It appeared to him that pressure had been brought to bear on the Government by interested parties, and that the Government introduced this measure In the dying stages of the session in the hope that it would pass into law without being noticed by the Labour organisations. He asked the Prime Minister if it was intended that this legislation would affect the Hawke’s Bay earthquake cases. It appeared to him that it was intended to achieve that purpose. Dealing With Future Cases. The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates replied that he did not think so. He understood that the proposal would deal only with future cases. . Mr. Walsh said that, if that w’as the case, why not hold the matter over until the next session of Parliament. It was grossly unfair to rush this legislation throtlgh in a Finance Bill, and if It were done the workers would be justified in stopping work in every industry as a protest. He concluded by appealing to the Prime Minister to drop the proposed amendment to the law. It was hitting below the belt and it was unfair to the workers of the country. The Prime Minister, in reply, said he would go into the matter fully, and would let Mr. Armstrong know the Government's intention in regard to It. He did not think that it would affect any of the present-day cases, and he agreed with the deputation that in a law of this kind the Labour movement was entitled to consideration. He was very pleased that the deputation had discussed the matter with him, as he liked to obtain their viewpoints. Mr. Butler asked if the Prime Minister had obtained the viewpoint of the other) side. The Prime Minister said he had obtained some opinions, but not very full opinions. In reply to a question as to whether there was any need to rush legislation of this kind, he said he did not think so. However, he would go fully into the matter and report to Mr. Armstrong" later.