PASSED

Evening Post, Volume CIII, Issue 32, 8 February 1922, Page 4

PASSED

'ARBITRATION BILL

AFTER AN ALL-NIGHT SITTING

IMPORTANT AMENDMENTS

A.S.-R.S. Ax\D E.F.C.A. INCLUDED.

Another day and night sitting was given by the House of Kepresenta-

tives yesterday to the consideration.

of the Arbitration Amendment Bill. The sitting commenced with all the operative clauses of the Bill remaining to be dealt with. The'task was/ completed and the third readingcarried at 5.25 a.m. The only im- . portant amendments made (apart from those recommended by the Labour Bills Committee) were proposed by the Minister- of Labour : To strike out ths clause.disfranchising the A.S.K.S. ;to add a new clause giving- the E1F.0.A.-registra-tion under the Act; and to enable evidence to be heard by the Court before reducing wages. On clause 3, dealing with the voting powers of unions taking part in the election of the nominated members of the Arbitration Court, Mr. M. J. Savage (Auckland West) moved an amendment to provide for each unionist having one- vot«. _ Mr. H. E. Holland (Buller) urged the Government to accept the amendment, j which, ho claimed, was similar to one of Mr. Massey's own 1913 .proposals. Mr. G. Mitchell (Wellington South), considered that the -advantages to be gained did not warrant the House departing from the principle which was the foundation of present-day society, tlie principle of one man one vote. Messrs. E. J. Howard (Christchurch), D. G. Sullivan (Avon), and W. E. Parry (Auckland Central) supported the amendment. Mr. T. K. Sidey (Dune-din South) said it would be more logical if the clause in giving one vote for each 50 members did not limit the votes to five. Why should the Minister propose to limit the voting power to 250 members? Messrs. J- M'C'ombs (Lyttelton) and P. Fraser (Wellington Central)' supported the amendment. The Ministei of Labour (the Hon. G. J. Anderson) raised a point of order on the ground that as the proposal meant increased expenditure- it would involve an appropriation. < Membors of the Labour Patty contended that the ballot to be taken under Mr. Savage's proposal would be carried out at the expense of the unions. The Chairman of 'Committee* said there was some colour for the- point of order, but he was not sure that the clause would necessitate more Government expenditure, and therefore .he would give the mover the benefit of the doubt. EXHAUSTED ARGUMENTS. Mr. Holland spoke after the dinner adjournment and was followed by Mr. Fraser, who asserted that the proposed method of election was not democratic. He criticised the Minister for not giving an explanation of the clause. At this stage he was interrupted by the Chairman of Committees, who said that since'the afternoon session he had made a little list of the items which had been already discussed at length— matters which need not be further discussed. These included the statement that this amendment was originally Mr. Massey's, that the clause was not democratic, that it would cause the workers to lose confidence in the Court, that the clause would encourage the splitting up of the unions, that some unions were very much bigger than others, and that many : members would be disfranchised. I Mr. Fraser said he did put it to the Minister that ho (should break his silence I and reply to the arguments which the Labour members had put forth. It might be thought that during the debate there had been tedious repetition, but about that he had his own opinion. The Chairman of Committees said that ho did not use the term "tedious repetition," but he was afraid that 'if the repetition of argument did continue it would become tedious. Mr. Fraser continued to attack the Minister on the question of his silence. "Why does he not explain to us the reason for this clans*?" he asked. Mr. Howard, in his final appeal to the Minister on the clause, said that the unions had offered to bear the whole cost of the election, and even to pay their representative on the Court. Each year the names of all members of the unions were supplied to the registrar, so that a roll was ready. The proposal would remove the voting-power irom the hands of a few members of tire unions to give it to all the members. The amendment was negatived by 45 to 22. Mr; Fraser moved a further amendment to make the limit of votes twentyfive instead of five. The voting on thi3 occasion was 45 to 23 against the amendment. Finally the clause was adopted by 45 to 24. PROGRESS—BUT NOT ENOUGH. Mr. J. M'Combs immediately moved to report progress, saying that it was quite unfaii that the supporters of the measure had not given their reasons. Messrs. . Fraser, Parry, Holland, Howard, and Bartram supported the motian. Mr. Holland said the new snbclauae to clause 10 had just been circulated, so that industrial organisations had not had an opportunity to see it. Mr. R. M'Callum (Wairau) urged the Labour Party to be content with the manly fight it had put up and to let the Bill go through; the Ministry would be displaced at the next election for putting through such an abortion of a measure. The motion was lost by 50 to 11. On clause 4, which amends section 90 of the principal Act, dealing with tho terms of awards, Mr. Howard asked the Ministei to explain exactly what the clause meant. The Minister said this was one of the amendments asked for by the Court. The clause was for the purpose of making awards date from the earliest date on which varying provisions would come into effect. DOMINION AWARDS. Mr. Howard moved an amendment to empower the Court to make awards covering all districts. Mr. W. A. Veitch (Wanganui) advocated the issue of Dominion awards covering main principles to which could'be attached sub-awardß or addenda dealing with local conditions. The Minister said he had promised to consider this proposal when the consolidating Bill was brought down. The amendment was defeated by 44 to 15. ■ * • Clause 4 was carried by 48 tn 8. I Clause 5 proposed to give power to thai Court to amend awards with the consent of all parties. '"" Mr. Howard, contended this power was quite unnecessary, lie moved amendments which, he said, at least, made the proposal intelligible. Labour members asked the Minister to explain the clause. ' The Minister said he, would not accept the amendment. The amendment was defeated by 52 to 12, and the clause was carried on the voices. A.S.R.S. AND E.F.C.A. The Minister of Labour moved to strike out clause 6, depriving- the A.S.R.S. of

any right to vote for tho Arbitration Court representative. He, said he pro- : po«d to add to the Bi!l ii new claifse, j giving the E.F.C.A. the same rights as ,: ware now possessed by the ;\.S.B.S. He ' understood that this 'had been promised I by his predecessor to the E.F.C.A. when the first amendment was made. Obviously if they put one organisation in they could not take another out. ' Miv Veitch said there was a third organisation in the railways. Sir William Herriea: "They have never asked for registration. They don't want it-.- ■ ■ I Mr. Voitdi said that Llie present clmue undei" which the A.S.R.S. was registered was useless, ar. it was impossible to ust ,the Court machinery effectively. The Minister "aid he would have this mutter considered in view of the consolidating Bill. It was impossible to do anything' this session. Labour members wished to be assured that the E.F.C.A. desired registration. Mr. J. S. Dickson (Parnell) said the E.F.C.A. had petitioned Parliament for registration in a previous session, and tho petition had been favourably report-, ed upon by the Eailways Committee. Clause 6 was struck out. . The municipal relief works clause was carried. Tire discussion is reported elsewhere. COURT REPRESENTATIVES. Clause 9 empowered the Governor-Gen-eral to appoint the acting nominated member to fill a- casual vacancy in the office of nominated member. Mr. Howard proposed an amendment to make such an appointment subject to ratification by a majority of the unions within. 30 days. It was argued that the unions might not approvo the acting member as pjerinaiient member. The amendment was rejected by 13 votes to 9, and the clause adopted. VARIATIONS OF AWARDS. The Committee then discussed Clause 10, which empowers the , Arbitration Court to amend industrial awards or agreements, having regard to variations in the cost of living. Mr. M'Combs moved: " That the total reduction in rates of remuneration provided by the Court's general order shall not exceed 10 p6r cent." His argument was that bonuses had not kept pace with the cost of living, and reductions should not operate so as to reduce basic-wage rates. The debate upon the clause and the amendment was largely on the lilies of, previous discussions. Mr. M'Combs argued that there should- be a statutory basic wage, below which even the Court could not reduce Mr.G. Mitchell (Wellington. South) said^ that before they started cutting down wages they should decide how they could -increase the efficiency of the State. A general order, applicable to all parts of the Dominion, would be unjust to some, such as Wellington, where r-ents and the cost of living were higher. If the Minister would make it mandatory that ,the Court should hear evidence there would not be so much objection. The amendment was defeated by 41 to 11. :.. Mr. M'Combs proposed further amendments to the clause to tho following effect:—To calculate the changes from March, 1920, instead of September, and to provide that there should be no reduction in wages till the cost of living had fallen 10 per cent, below the increase in the cost of living. The arfiendment was lost by 41 to 11. Mr. P. Fraser (Wellington Central) moved to provide that no general order should operate to reduce the wages of an adult male worker below £4 10s a week. The amendment was rejected by 36 to1 ■14. •■■■■ -.-'

REPRESENTATIONS TO THE COURT. On the motion of the Minister, the following proviso was added to subclause 2:— " Provided that, after having ascertained the extent of any increase or decrease in the cost of living, and before making any general order under this section, the Court shall afford such opportunity as it t)iinks proper to representatives appointed by the parties bound by awards and industrial agreements to be heard by the Court with respect to the amount by which 'any rates of remuneration should be increased or decreased, save that the failure of any parties to appoint any such representatives shall not affect the validity of any general order made by the Court under this section." Mr. Mitchell proposed an amendment in the proviso to give the representatives of the parties the right to_appear. The Minister said it was intended^ that this should be conveyed in the proviso. If it were not. there already, he would have it put right. • The amendment was rejected on the voices. Mr. Fraser moved to.give the right of hearing in each industrial district. The amendment wbb lost by 40 to 12. In reply to Mr. Fraser, the Minister said he was advised that it was necessary to retain the eubclause requiring unions to take a ballot of members before applying for exemption from a general order. There tfere certain unions which had contracted themselves out of the bonus provisions, and their awards would run for the full term and be protected. He would investigate again whether the provision was necessary. Clause It was carried by 38 to 11. The Minister moved to add the new clause which he had mentioned previously, granting registration to the E.F.O.A. Mr Holland proposed, as an amend- | ment, that all industrial organisations of employers and employees should ba eligible for registration. The amendment was rejected! by 43 to 7, and the clause was carried. Labour member; then proceededl to move a variety of new clauses, of which they hadr given notice. The Prime Minister asked if the Labour members proposed to go on with those clauses. ■ Mr. Holland : "If you will not go on with the third reading'we will not go on with these clauses." I The Prime Minister (emphatically) : I am going on with the third reading." Mr. Holland : "Then we will go on with the new clauses." Most of the clauses were not debated nor even explained. All were rejected by substantial majorities. There wae a very little talk on. the proposal to provide machinery for making Dominion awards, but this also was defeated. At 4.25 a.m. the Bill was reported with amendments. THE THIRD READING. The third reading was taken at once. Mr. Howard said the Labour Party had done all it couldi to p rovent the Bill being passed. The tvorkers who voted for the Reform Party at the last election had got what they deserved.' The responsibility now lay ■with the Government. Mr. Holland said the Bill, bad as it was now, was yet much, different from the original Bill. Labour's fight might have failed, but it had succeeded, in removing some of'the worst features of the A member : "Thai was done by the labour Bills Committee." Mr...Holland : "Yes, but by Ihn Labour members on that Committee," Members : "No." Mr. Holland : "And by the representatives of the Labour organisations who gave nvidence." Mr. [miser said I'nc legislation war. bound to react on those who promoted The Minister of Labour, in reply, said

the Government had been accused of rob- ' bing the poor and the- fatherless. | Labour members: "Hear, hear!" • The Minister s.".id ilier« wits no notion lof the Government snici it came into | offica that justified thai. Mr. Howard : "Ye:!, your action to. bight." The' Minister : "The liunonrablu men.bers knovvs perleclly well that ihte legif> lation was. rendered .'.bsolutt>ly uecetsary by llie results of this war." Tho Government did net want to reduce wages ; but it was- forced to grapple with the oxist- | iiig conditions, and it was doing so. Ti.'ere was no attempt to break "down industrial organisations, but to bring them intc a condition to carry on tlia business of tho country efficiently. There was no intention of interfering with awards. The awards had been amended whoxv wages were on the up-grade, and all that was done was to keep that system in operation. The third reading was agreed to by 38 to 9.