INDUSTRIAL LAWS

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 183, 1 May 1936, Page 12

INDUSTRIAL LAWS

Further Argument On New Legislation THREE MAIDEN SPEECHES Opposition < Fears Trade Union Domination Very little fresh ground was broken in rlie second reading debate on the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill when it was resumed in Hie House of Representatives yesterday afternoon. In Hie main, it was a “back-benchers’ field day.” Maiden speeches were contributed by Mr. E. P. Meaclien (Government, IVairau), Mr. C. R. Petrie (Government, Hanraki) and Mr. 11. E. Herring (Government, Mid-Canterbury). A suggestion that the policy followed by the last Government had been responsible for filling the mental hospitals of the Dominion was made by Mr. Meachen. During the past four years, he said, there had been a sustained attempt to reduce the standard of living of the people, but the Bill before the House would restore that standard to a reasonable level. There was no menace in unionism such as was suggested by Opposition speakers. Low rates of pay under the last Government had caused riots in the cities, and if unionism could control individuals who had been forced to riot it would be performing a useful service.

“We have been accused of murdering the mothers and starving the children,” said Mr. IV. P. Endean (Opposition, Parnell), “and now we are accused of driving the people into the asylums. Government members might just as well charge the last Government with wrecking the Rangatira, causing the hurricanes and losing the last Test match at Twickenham. * “The Prime Minister says we have the brakes off, and are going onward and upward. IVe may be going up into the stratosphere for all he knows, and when we get there we do not know 'what will happen, whether we are going to explode into dust or not.” Mr. Endean said that in fixing the basic wage on the requirements of a man, his wife and three children, the Government was not paying any attention to graduation. There was no provision for the employers to be heard on the point. It was an attempt to nail every person down to the one level, irrespective of ability or power to produce. It was also a retrograde step that every man should be dragooned into union membership. A Government member: Did you support conscription? Mr. Endean: Yes, and if the Government is prepared to dragoon men into unionism why should it not be prepared to enforce conscription? Unfulfilled Prophecies. Mr. Petrie said the attitude of the Opposition was one of reactionary criticism. When the original Act had been introduced, people had predicted that the country would die an industrial death inside 12 months. That prediction had never been realised Similarly, when the Act was being restored and brought up to date pessimistic criticism would prove to have the same lack of foundation. “IVe are told that we should keep in step with Britain,” Mr. Petrie said. “For some years, every time Britain took a step and we kept in touch we were in trouble. Then British policy changed, and the Home Country concentrated on home industries for home consumption. There was an immediate and marked recovery. That is the step we are taking to-day.” The opinion that the Bill was “a bargaining bludgeon inlaid with dynamite” was expressed by Mr. IV. J. Broadfoot (Opposition, IVaitomo). Government members, he said, had claimed that the Bill would result in producing a better spirit between the employer and the employee, but in his opinion it would create strife, for it ,was an injection of trades union opinion and desires without much regard for the rights of employers. A good spirit was not going to be fostered by one section asking for the whole of the profits and leaving none for those whose capital and skill kept industry going. Tiger Tasting Blood. “This Bill is a product of trades union pressure,” continued Mr. Broadfoot. “In it is written the rabid desire of the trades union officials. According to this legislation employers are a parasitical class. It looks as though they will all be swept away, for it looks as though the pressure in the future will be greater still. It is a case of a tiger tasting blood, and when it has done that it will want more blood.” “The social system in Russia was overturned by cruel methods, and I seo in this Bill a peaceful revolution that will bring just as uiuili disaster to New Zealand as the social revolution brought to Russia,” declared Mr. Broadfoot. “In Russia 4,000,000 of the intelligentsia were killed.” The Minister of Education, Hon. P. Fraser: Every member of the Opposition would be safe anyway. “This is legislation for a class,” Mr. Broadfoot added. “It is just one of a series of enactments that will constitute the greatest economic gamble ever seen in New Zealand.” Control by the Workers. Control of industry by the workers themselves was advocated by Mr. Herring. He submitted that the real questions to be decided were: Would the changes in the Bill be advantageous? Would they react to the benefit, of the workers and of the people generally? He claimed that the wages system was a defeated system, because one group of employers in com-

petition with another did its best to cut costs, and when that happened down came wages, the workers were left without a feather to fly with, as their consuming power was gone. Tile Bill was a little disappointing, said Mr. Herring, because after all it only dealt with wages and conditions., The solution of the problem was not to be found in wages and conditions; the only real solution was workers’ control of industry. He maintained that one of the main functions of a union was to educate its members along those lines. Some of the unions were sufficiently advanced to adopt that idea, which was the next step in progress. “Unionists,” said Mr. Herring, “must be educated to the idea that ultimately they must take over the control of all affairs relating to industry,, and that industry must be run for the benefit not of the employers but of the people who consume our products. The true partners in industry are not the employers and the workers, but the workers and the consumers. Although satisfied -with the Bill, as far as it goes, I would like to think it is merely a step along the road to the final abolition of the wage relation.” Government members: Hear, hear I “Straight-out Communism." The intention of the Opposition to fight the clauses in the Bill which it considered objectionable was mentioned by ■Mr. j. Hargest (Opposition, Awarua). The Bill, he said, handed over all industry, both primary and secondary, to the domination iff' trade union officials. Mr. Herring’s idea was straightout Communism and nothing else, and it was rather enlightening to hear the chorus of approval from the Government benches.

At one time, said Mr. Hargest, the person who invested his savings in industry had some rights, but apparently that was not to be so in the future. The basic wage had been fixed without any regard to the ability of the industry to pay. “Ministers say that good times are coming,” Mr. Hargest said. “They may be good times fore some people, but, under the legislation in front of ns, there is going to be a bad time for many others. Ido not believe that the workers have agitated for a 40hour. week, but we do not object even to that provision if industry can carry it. Higher wages and shorter hours must mean increased costs, and tariffs will jump upward in company with costs. It is all an attempt to isolate New Zealand from the rest of the world, when we depend on the rest of the world for our existence.” Compulsory membership of unions was a dangerous principle for adoption in the Dominion, said Mr. Hargest. It was most unfair that workers should be compelled to join unions and subscribe to funds which might be used partly for political purposes In support of a. party to which they might be opposed. There were parasitical gentlemen who called themselves trade union officials and who dominated tlie unions. They decided where the subscriptions went. The Dominion still depended on the farmers, and the cost of all these social experiments would come off (he sheep’s back or out of the milk pail, added Mr. Hargest. Even with the guaranteed price the farm industry would remain unsheltered, and actually, as far as farm workers were concerned, the Bill was going to ensure the permanent enslavement of women and children on countless small farms where it would be impossible to pay increased wages. The debate was adjourned.