PARLIAMENT

Evening Star, Issue 22327, 1 May 1936, Page 6

PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CRITICISM OF ARBITRATION POWERS CONTROL BY UNION BOSSES [Per United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, April 30. The House met at 2.30 p.m. The second reading debate on the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill was resumed. Mr Meacben said*the action of the last Government had lowered the standard of living of the people, and many parents had not been able to give their children the dental and other treatment, they should have had. He oould see nothing Wrong in unions controlling individual thought. It was probably a good thing. As a result of unionism, men in the cities were obtaining better remuneration than those in the country. If unionism, too, gave an impetus to the use of machinery, it was very desirable, as it would mean better conditions for the workers. Mr Endean said the standard of living in New Zealand was already higher than in many other countries, and ho thought the mistake the Government was making was that New Zealand was isolating itself from the world. It had to be remembered that whatever was spent, New Zealand could get back only what the purchasers of New Zealand’s goods gave for them. He thought they must ask themselves if the Government was not trying to bring the country back to prosperity too quickly. He thought if that aspect was examined it would be found to be sound. Ho contended that the basic wage should be fixed for a man, his wife, and one child, not three children. He thought provision should be made for the employer to be heard when the wage was oeing fixed. He thought it wrong that every man _ should be dragooned into joining a union. It was a retrograde step. He did not think reducing hours would increase efficiency. Ho considered New Zealand should have regard to the conditions of other countries, and thought things should be left as they .were for the time being. t Mr Petrie said the Opposition’s attitude to the Bill could be traced to social conditions that had been handed down to them from the days of semi-barbar-ism, The Bill set up provisions that vould serve to end industrial unrest, and would improve the relationship between employer and employee. A continuation of the last Government’s policy would have meant the strangulation of industry, would have forced traders into difficulties, and the workers into permanent idleness, with consequent misery. Mr Broadfoot considered that compulsory arbitration would cause strife rather than peace between employer and employee. The Bill, he thought, was the product of trade union pressure, and into it had been written the desires of the union officials. According to the designers of the legislation, the employers appeared to he a parasitical class, who were to be eliminated from the social structure of the community. The employers would be subjected to greater pressure in future by union officials, and it would be a case again of the tiger, having once tasted blood, wanting more blood. With the powers in the Bill, virtual central of industry would pass from the employers, not to the workers, but to trades union officials, or union “ bosses,” and it would not be in the interests of the Dominion. He saw in the Bill the undermining of the present social system, and a peaceful revolution which might bring disaster to the country. He did not think the people of the Dominion realised what was going on under the measures introduced and to be introduced by the Government. The products of industry would mostly go to the worker; very little would be left to the employer and the shareholder who provided the money. He thought the Government’s majority was not a mandate to place almost revolutionary legislation on the Statute Book. It was legislation for a class, not for all the people, and it was but one of a series of enactments that constituted one of the greatest gambles that had ever been seen. Mr Lee: Gambol. Mr Broadfoot said the court would bo inundated with applications for awards, and it would only have to guess at the basic wage. The basic wage, too, was not to apply to Government employees. Surely that was unfair discrimination between the State and private employers. What was the necessity for a basic wage? It applied only tor those under awards, and awards always provided a minimum wage. He contended that the provisions of the Bill were an unwarranted interference with individuals in the Dominion. Mr Herring said the Bill marked a great step forward. He thought entry into certain premises by trade union secretaries would be desirable, especially in some places where women were employed. He thought Opposition members had lost sight of the fact that the Labour cost was a very small percentage of the total cost of production. He was sorry the Bill did not go far enough. It dealt only with wages and conditions, and they provided no way out. It did not provide any real solution. The real solution in his opinion was work and control of industry. An industry had to belong to the workers who were engaged in it. He claimed that was the next step in progress. Unionists must be trained to the idea that they must take over all affairs relating to industry, and that it should bo run for their benefit and the consumers’ benefit. Mr Hargest said Mr Herring’s idea was straight-out Communism and nothing else, and it was rather enlightening to hear the chorus of approval from the Government benches. The basic wage, he said, was being brought down without any consideration of the ability of an industry to pay it. He thought the provision was unwise, particularly at a time when industry was being rehabilitated. He agreed with high wages if an industry was in a position to pay them. The debate was adjourned.