THE BASIC WAGE

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 199, 20 May 1936, Page 12

THE BASIC WAGE

Success Expected In

New Zealand RIGHTS OF WORKERS Arbitration Bill Before Council •'The basic wage has been a success in Australia, and I hare no doubt that it will also be a success in New Zealand,” said the Leader of the Legislative Council, Hon. M. Fagan, in moving the committal of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration amendment Bill in the council yesterday afternoon. Mr. Fagan said that the clause giving back to the workers the right to approach the Arbitration Court was roost important. For 38 years under the late Mr. W. Pember Reeves and the old Liberal administration the workers had that right. It was taken away from them in 1932 and voluntary arbitration substituted. ‘‘l have never been able to understand what that term means,” said Mr. Fagan. “The amending legislation took away protection from thousands of workers in the worst period of the depression. It gave an advantage to unscrupulous employers and the decent-minded employer was put off-side.” Referring to the 40-hour week Mr. Fagan said that while other countries were talking about it New Zealand was prepared to act and the Bill would enable the principle to be tested. The Hon. R. Masters: Will it apply to all Government departments? Mr. Fagan: I am not clear at the moment in respect of that. A Restriction To Re Removed. The Leader of the Council, continuing, said it was the intention of Hie Government to amend the Bill in Ihe direction of removing the restriction of the application of awards and industrial agreements in cases where work was not carried on for the pecuniary gain of the employer. "I had my doubts in connection with the clause,” Mr. Kagan added, “and I have consulted with the Government and the Minister in charge of the Bill, and I propose to move that the clause be struck out when the Bill is in committee.” (Hear, hear.) Mr. Fagan pointed out that in the first place the clause referred to charitable or religious organisations, whereas there were many charitable institutions not religious that would not be covered by the clause. Further, employment might be given to an unemployed man or a returned soldier, aud under the clause it would be necessary for an employer to secure art. under-rate worker’s permit from the Arbitration Court. There had also been much misapprehension, particularly in the House of Representatives, as to the effect of the clause as far as private houses were concerned in the event of a domestic servants’ union being registered and officers of the union calling at homes and being generally annoying. Mr. Fagan added that section 154 of the principal Act still afforded protection to charitable and religious organisations. Benefits and Penalties. “The Bill is full of doubtful benefits on the one hand and definite penalties on the other,” said the Hon. W. Hayward (Canterbury), who concentrated his criticism of the measure on the clauses dealing with compulsory arbitration and compulsory unionism. After all, he said, the original Act was intended to settle industrial disputes and not to create them. Disputes had been created by the workers seeking to obtain impossible conditions. Moreover. the large majority of workers in the Dominion bad not availed themselves of the Act during its 42 years’ operation. The Hon. J. A. McCullough (Canterbury), a former representative of the workers on the Arbitration Court, said that Mr. Hayward had attacked arbitration laws all his life. While he personally was not wholly in sympathy with every clause in the Bill, yet he believed that it was in the best interests of the workers. Co-operation was the life of trade, and the Bill would enable those engaged in trade to cooperate. He was not at all satisfied that the Bill had not rebounded too fast and too far, and that it did not in its present form contain clauses that might prove to be inimical to those whom it primarily sought to benefit. Plutocracy of Officialdom. “I can see a danger that compulsory unionism may lead to the enthroning of a powerful plutocracy of officialdom that may be tempted to put their own comfort and the emoluments of office before that of the persons belonging to the, organisation whom they are

elected to serve,” Mr. McCullougn said. “But time. I hope, may prevent my fears from lining realised. 1 am keenly anxious to prevent a condition of affairs arising in this country where our union officials will lie tlie friends and companions of stockbrokers and banking magnates, or we will ever have a trade union official being offered a reward of £25,000 to write his autobiography.” At the same time he would vote for Hie Bill, Mr. McCullough continued, because it would tend to even up Hie difference between the good employer and the unscrupulous employer. Tlie Hon. C. .7. Carrington (Auckland) said he was not in favour of compulsory unionism, lint he saw nothing better to put in its place. Every worker should have the right to say whether he should join a union or not. The Hon. F. E. Lark (Auckland) said the Government in establishing a basic wage was laying down a principle which would induce people to come to the Dominion and live under decent conditions. “Under this Bill," ho added, "we will not have a repetition of what happened at Waihi in 1912, where decent men had to go to jail. 'not. because they were conscientious objectors, but because they would not allow the Act to be administered in a coercive way.” He contended that tiro employer would always select the militant unionist as his best worker. The debate was adjourned and the Council rose at 5 p.m.