BETTER PROGRESS

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 77, 1 April 1931, Page 13

BETTER PROGRESS

THE FINANCE BILL

ARBITRATION SECTION

"ATTACK ON WORKERS"

Good progress was made on the. Finance Bill after breakfast this morning, and the whole of the first part of the Bill had been disposed of by 11.15 a.m., when an adjournment was taken to enable the Address-in-Reply to be presented to tha Governor-General. The stage has now heen reached when the second section of the Bill, dealing with the I.C. and A. Act, is under discussion. The clauses enabling persons compulßorily retired to retain their superannuation Tights, notwithstanding tlio cut, ■were adopted without discussion. ■ The, Committee wont on to deal with a formal clause providing that the rodnced salary rates skoiild continue in force "until lawfully altered." The Leader of the Labour Party (Mr. H. E. Holland) said it seemecl an extraordinary thing that, although the salary reductions wcro regarded as an emergency measure, there was no - date fixed for their termination. He moved that the salary and wage- reductions terminate on 31st December. This amendment was lost by 20 votes . to 40: The division bells were immediately set ringing again on the motion for the adoption of the clause, which was • agreed to by 42 votes to 20. Consideration of the clause- relating to the framing of regulations was deferred, the Prime Minister announcing that an amendment to it would be introduced by Governor-General's Message to enable, the Government to set ,up a Hardship Commission. " Tho clause applying the cut to the Cook Islands and Sanioan Public Services survived by 43 votes to 20. "BREACH OF CONTRACT." The ■Committee next turned to Clause 15, the first of Part 11. of the Bill dealing with amendments of awards, industrial agreements, and apprenticeship orders in relation to wages. • Th Leader of the Labour Party said that industrial agreements had been denned by the Bill to include both industrial agreements within the meaning' of the principal Act and agreements filed with tho Clerk of Awards piirsriant to the Labour Disputes Investigation Act. This meant that agree- .. ments mutually agreed on by both employers and employees could be amended by the provisions of the Bill. How could they expect the workers to respect the Court if such conditions w.ere allowed? It was a tearing up and violation of honourable agreements and a deliberate attack on tho workers of the Dominion. There wero no .satojjuarding conditions, and he hoped that the House would see the unfairness of the position. ■ Mr. Forbes: "They have got it . in Australia." Mr. Holland: "I don't care what they have in Australia. I have seen ■ some awards in Australia that—l was going to say they would not be tolerated in primitive countries—would be 'an insult to primitivo people." We did'not want to take our Acts from Australia. Mr. W. E. Parry (Labour, Auckland Contial): M They, have their own back-, yards to clean up." Mr. Holland said that the agreements made between workers and employers should be jealously guarded as honourable contracts. Mr. E. J. Howard (Labour, Christchurch South) said that once the faith of the'workers in the Arbitration Court was broken an injury would be done to New Zealand. Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Labour, Avon) "asked what effect the Bill would have lon the minds of both employers and 1 employees.when they entered the Arbitration Court in the future. The Prime Minister had said that awards were not contracts,' and both employers and workers would have this written before, thent when they entered the Court.- ---■ Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Labour; Christchurch East) said that tlie legislation might '.destroy tho Arbitration system altogether. Agreements made in tho last sis months were going to bo broken by Parliament without, the request of eitßeiremployors or workers.: Ho characterised the Bill as a glaring instance of repudiation of agreement. Mr. •E. Semple (Lab., Wellington ' 'East) submitted that tho Government should consider the step it was about to. take to violate existing agreements right throughout the Dominion which had been arrived at after much labour and at considerable expense. >. At this stage progress was reported ■in'brder to enable Mr. Speaker, accompanied by members, to present the Address-3n-Keply to the Governor-Gen-eral. AMENDMENTS INTRODUCED. . After the resumption, amendments to : the Finance Bill were introduced by Governor-General's Mossage. The Leader of the Opposition asked .if tho amendments provided for a hardship tribunal, and whether he had taken into consideration the Reform Party suggestion that relief should bo given on. the basis of the number of children in a family. Mr. P. Fraser (Labour, Wellington Central) referred to people who arc unable to pay their rent, and asked if the tribunal would consider cases of hardship generally, apart from the Public servants. Would the provisions be extended to include hardship under Part 11. of the Bill; or would a separate tribunal be appointed-to deal with those cases? Mr. M'Conibs said I' 1" amendment was a strange commentary ou the legislation it was designed to mitigate. It was evident, from the very fact that ..the Prime Minister was providing for a hardship tribunal, that he "did not really believe that, the cost of living would fall proportionately with the_ reduction in wagos. A precisely similar tribunal set up in 1023 did not function, but under tho hardship clause of f.ho. Land and Income Tax Amendment Act of last year wealthy landowners had obtained large remissions. A member of the House, a wealthy man, had had £500 remitted. Mr. Coates: "Where did you got your information? You should make sure of your facts." PUBLIC SERVICE CHARITABLE AID BOARD. Mr. M'Coombs expressed the hope that workers, would benefit from the present provision as much as tho wealthy had done out of last year's legislation. Mr. W. E. Parry (Labour, Auckland Central) characterised tho tribunal as a Public Service Charitable Aid Board. Tho 1922 tribunal had been set. up to insult tho workers. Would the tribunal now proposed do the same? Mr. D. Jones (Eoform, Mid-Canter-' lmry) said the Reform Party believed l.ho Prime Minister would give them a fair (leal. Why should the Labour Party attack a, tribunal which would be of BOine service to tho Public, servants? "I suggest, to the workers," he said, "that they recognise who arc the real friends of the workers —the HefOrm Party." (Labour laughter.)

fPro«?edhigJ