SECOND COURT

Evening Post, Volume CXXIV, Issue 120, 17 November 1937, Page 5

SECOND COURT

MEASURE PASSED

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

There was no real objection to the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2) in the Legislative Council yesterday afternoon, and the measure was passed after several Councillors had commented ; on it in terms similar to those used by members of the Lower House. After the Leader of the Council (the Hon. Mark Fagan) had outlined . the provisions of the Bill, the Hon. J. McLeod (Taranaki) said that the position in industrial disputes in New Zealand at the present time required drastic action, but he believed one way of simplifying matters would be to leave industrial disputes to the present Arbitration Court and refer compensation claims to the temporary Court. Mr. McLeod said that he did not think that racing clubs could take exception to the provisions bringing them under the Act, but he'could see little reason for the amendment relating to them because most of their employees were either covered by awards or were being paid above award rates. The clause relating to them might lead to some minor difficulties, but, on the whole, the Bill was a move in the right direction. ■ . ■ ■ The Hon. V. A. Ward (Wellington) said there was a clear case for action, and the only real complaint he had to make was that the legislation before them should have been put into operation some months ago.

CLAUSE OPPOSED.

The Hon. W. Perry (Wellington) said that he considered, one Court should deal with disputes while the other heard compensation cases'. There was need for a speeding up of the work of the Court, and .for that, reason it was only right that the Court should be able to delegate its powers to Magistrates from time to time. - However, the Magistrates were a hard-working body of men and he hoped that they would not be. overloaded with industrial cases. The only point in the Bill that he objected to, said Mr. Perry, was the clause bringing chartered, racing, and other clubs under the Act. When the Bill was in Committee he intended to vote against that clause. The Hon. B. Martin (Auckland), expressed the opinion that the temporary Court might become a permanent institution. ■ '■ , After other Councillors had. spoken in favour of the Bill, the Leader replied and said that there were insufficient compensation cases for one Court to be fully occupied with them. However, he believed the time might come when one Court would be busy with disputes while the other was kept fully occupied with compensation cases and any overflow of disputes. Mr Perry gave his voice against clause 6 when the Bill was in Committee, but did not divide the Council and the Bill was passed. . , - The Council rose at 4.10 p.m. •