Evening Post. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1904. THE EMPLOYERS' FEDERATION.

Evening Post, Volume LXVIII, Issue 132, 1 December 1904, Page 4

Evening Post. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1904 . THE EMPLOYERS' FEDERATION.

The report of the Vigilance Committee of the New Zealand Employers' Federaj tion, which was adopLed by the Federation at its annual meeting yeslerclyy, refers with satisfaction to the fact that "the volume of proposed labour legislation has seiisibly diminished,"' and claims for the Federation itself sume of the credit for a result which its members naturally regard as a happy one. " Doubtless," s;>j s the report, " there are many influences which have contributed to this result. But it is not unreasonable to suppose that one of them is ilie fret that employcis are organised, watchful, and ready to act. It is now well ICL-ojnhed by politicians that there is another party besides the Trades and Labour Councils which claims and exercises the right to examine legislative proposals;. This cor.sideiation lies in itself been a preventive t>nd a cluck." These remarks seem to us to be fully justified, and the report shows that, though lest se^ion did not oiler ;ib much scope as that, of the previous year, when the success of the employers' opposition to many crude I proposals was specially noticeable, some I excellent and effective work has neverthe- ! less been done. But despite the recogni- , tion by the politicians that the field is no longer monopolised by the labour organisations, the employers complain that in ona significant le&psct they have, as yet failed | to secure equal treatment. " Seeing that I the sum of £70 appeared on the Estimates' for the " expenses of delegates to Labour Conference," tbe committee of the Federation applied for a similar concession to the delegates attending the Employers' ConI ferenoe, but in vain. Mr. Seddon replied, j first of all • by letter, and afterwards in answer to Mr. James Allen in the House, that there is precedent lor payment in respect of Labour delegates, but none in the case of employers, and that the circumstances of the two organisations are " dissimilar." The reply is correct as far as it goes, but the implication that there is anything in the dissimilarity to justify dissimilar treatment by the Government does not appear to be sustainable. The practical ground of distinction is that the | unionists need the money, and the employers do not, but if this were a reasonable ground for discrimination it would equally justify the Government's payment, j for instance, of the expenses of the delegates attending a Prohibition Conference and the refusal of a similar subsidy to the Licensed Victuallers. It is a clear case of both or neither, and the illustration we have suggested surely proves that it should be neither. I On the three chief Labour measures of last session the employers make some very cogent observations : "Very close and constant attention was given to the Shops and Offices Bill during its passage through the House" ; copies were distributed throughout the colony, th© Premier was j waited on, circulars Mere sent to members of Parliament, and "the net result is the elimination of many troublesome provisions, and the inclusion of several of our suggested amendments, either in the exact form submitted or in substance." But the clause which has caused all the trouble "ijcver came under the notice of the committee" at all, for the same reason that prevented shopkeepers, journalists, legislators, or anybody else, from attending ito it. A similar surprise was in store for thd employers with regard to the Workers' Compensation Amendment Bill, in wllich they secured important alterations, only to find their "vigilance foiled by a clause radically altering the basis of compensation, which was passed in a similar fashion to Clause 3 of the Shops and Offices Act, having been pressed upon the House by the Premier as merely a "machinery amendment." The comments of the Vigilance Committee on this "improper, unbusinesslike, and dangerous method of rushing legislation through Parliament when it is impossible to give such legislation "full consideration," are w^ll worth repeating : "Between the hours of 7.3!) and 9.30 p.m. on Saturday, sth November, when it was believed that in a few hours the House would be prorogued, the Shops and Offices, Arbitration Amendment, and Compensation for Accidents Amendment Bills were dealt with. In one case the whole body of the. Bill, which had been before Parliament for months, was dropped by the Minister, and an entirely new set of provisions was substi tultd ; and iv other cases important alteralicns were made without the least notice, and when there was no possibility of die-

cussing their import. It is high time to utter a strong protest against such wholly unfair proceedings." There is no gainsaying the justice of these strong but temperately worded comments, and as the demoralising process referred to has for once hurt the man responsible for it worse than anybody else, there is some chance of a remedy. Labour might surely join with capital in demanding one.