COMPULSORY ARBITRATION

Evening Star, Issue 21232, 13 October 1932, Page 14

COMPULSORY ARBITRATION

LABOUR BILL "TALKED OUT" MR M'COMBS'S BITTER ATTACK [ I‘KO-M Quit P.UiI.IAMKNTAUV K KI'OI!TKK. ] AVIXUXGTOX, October 12. lovely discussion was provoked in tlie House to-day when Air Al ‘Combs sought leave to introduce bis Industrial, Conciliation, and Arbitration Amendment Bill, a measure designed to repeal the Act passed during the last emergency session, oliecting drastic changes in the system, including the introduction ol’ compulsory conciliation and optional arbitration. The amendment seeks to restore the old method of voluntary conciliation and compulsory arbitration, and to make all agreements and awards arrived at under last session’s legislation null and void and of no effect. The Bill was ‘‘talked out,” and accordingly did not receive its first reading. Air AHCombs stated this evening that to-morrow ho would seek leave to introduce a second measure, containing exactly the same provisions. Opening the discussion in the House this afternoon, Air M.‘Combs said that it had been pointed out when last session’s legislation was before the House that the previous wage-reducing measures had proved disastrous to trade and industry. Before the interparty Committee representatives of the wholesalers, retailors, and manufacturers had testified in support of that contention, in .spite, however, of experience, the Government had amended the i.C. and A. Act to give the Employers’ Association the opportunity to force the wages of the workers down still further. The House had been told that a reduction in wages would mean more employment, but the first “cut ” trebled the unemployment difficulty. ■When the last measure was before the House the number of unemployed stood at 42,000; to-day the figure was 70,000. By the amending of the Act workers had been deprived of their right of appeal to an impartial tribunal, and, although the law had been in operation only a few months, industrial chaos was beginning to manifest itself from one end of the country to the other. Disputes had arisen, and they had not been settled. That was a disadvantage to tbc workers and to those employers who wanted to do tbo right thing, but were prevented by competition. Employers were placed in the position of being able to dictate the terms, and their association was forcing its members to take full advantage of the Act and force down wages and living standards. In the cases of juniors, for instance, some of the reductions were as high as 40 per cent. On behalf of some of the local bodies surrounding Christchurch city, the association was asking that wage rates should be Is 3d an hour. He did not believe many of the local bodies were in favour of such a demand, hut their hands wore being forced by the association. Last session’s amendment bad simply reduced the Arbitration Act to a farce. The late Air Pember Beeves, author of the original legislation, bad foreseen what would happen unless his Bill contained provision for compulsory arbitration. His words had been: “If you pass an optional measure, you will put a tiling on the Statute Book that will have no effect whatever.’’ “ That was forty years ago. The legislation for which the Prime Alinister had been responsible had thrown the country back further than that—sixty years.’’ Air AHCombs quoted from a letler wj'ittcn hy_ the widow of the late Pember Beeves, which indicated her belief tbat_ “the pulling to pieces of his legislation ” weakened him. “I hope,” added Air AHCombs, “that the late Air Reeves’s Liberal colleagues are not still proud of that amending legislation.” According to Mr A I.‘Keen, the Employers’ Association had been placed in the position of a dictator, ft was from that body that the Government received its instructions. (Laughter.) “ 4 receive instructions from all quarters, but I don’t follow them,” Air Eorbes said. Some of the statements from the Opposition were not strictly in _accordance with fact. He had no hesitation in affirming that, had the late Air Beeves been placed in his position, he would have done the same as he (Air Eorbes) had. Labour Members: Xovcr. “ He would sooner have jumped over the wharf,” declared Mr Armstrong. Air Eorbes: Ho was a Liberal. He was not a rigid Conservative like my Labour friends, who hold that if you pass legislation forty years ago you must not amend it.” There was no doubt, the Prime Alinister continued, that great changes had taken place in the last forty years. When the original Act was passed, he was thoroughly in accord with it, hut conditions had changed. Greater consideration was being shown for the workers by the employers la-day than over had been shown before. Labour Members: Question. The conditions prevailing to-day were not at all comparable with the conditions of forty years ago, continued Air Eorbes. Air AHCombs; AVe are rapidlv getting back to them. The Prime Alinister said it must be recognised that the fall in the national income had made wage reductions imperative. Had the Government been able to borrow £10,000,000 for. public works, or something like that, there would have been plenty of money to go round, and all would have been well, but that bad been quite impossible. The argument that there had been an increase in unemployment ns the result ol the reductions was ludicrous. 1 lie whole object of tbc Act bail been to provide greater freedom of employment. The attempt to couple unemployment with the reduction was so obvious a misrepresentation that it could not pass muster anywhere. It was well known that since the passing of the Act there bad been a steady decline in tbo national income. Asked whether be thought the Act had produced harmonious feelings between employer and employee, Air Forbes replied: “How can 'there he harmonious feeling when reductions are being brought about:-' There was harmonious fooling between (lie Government and the Public Service until reductions were made. How can you hope to maintain that harmonious feeling when reductions are necessary? But anybody with common sense who realises the situation will recognise that those things, however unpleasant, are necessary at the pro. - «11 ti■ Were the employers to say to-morrow that they would increase i,,e.. prove conditions there wonid be. of course, agreement in every ease, but when they have to say their businesses cannot stand under the present rales it is very difiicult to secure acceptance in a harmonious spirit.” Air Forbes said be did not wish to see low wages in Xew Zealand. If the country could pay high wages it would I fie a sign that it was prosperous, but !i ii the present dilliculllcs there bad to be reduction and readjustments to enable businesses: to keen afloat.