ARBITRATION ACT

Greymouth Evening Star, 11 March 1932, Page 7

ARBITRATION ACT

MINISTER’S DEFENCE

SECOND READING DEBATE I ' ■ [PEB PBEBS ASSOCIATION.] ! WELLINGTON, March 10. Moving the second reading of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill, this afternoon, Mr <Hamilton (Minister of Labour) said that the Labour Party had failed to appreciate the necessity for helping to adjust matters to meet the new and difficult position that had arisen. The Act had been under criticism for years by workers and employers, and the necessity for a drastic amendment was fully realised. The main feature of the Amending Bill, which was voluntary arbitration, first came into prominence at' the Industrial Conference in 1928. The position was much more serious to-day. * Mr Lee: It is “to hell with agreements,” to-day. Quoting from the remarks of Mr Justice 1 : Stringer, ,Mr Hamilton said that the Judge had been, of the opinion that amendments to the Act were needed. Mr Endean: He doesn’t agree with your amendments. Continuing, Mr Hamilton said that the conditions existing in 1894, when the Act was first passed, were very different from those existing to-day. when it was not the employed, but the unemployed, who were the biggest social problem. Sweating in industry was not a problem, as it had been in 1894. The national income had fallen from £150.000.000 in 1929 to £90,000,000 to-day. New Zealand had to take serious note of this fact, and adjust her economic life accordingly. Industries to-day, instead’ of engaging cheap labour, were’ either dispensing with staffs or closing down. The Dominion was faced with two problems. The first was to get the workers back into employment, and the second was to give reasonable protection to the exporting class. Mr Hamilton went on to express the view that the Arbitration Court in New Zealand had'become a legislative body, instead of an arbitrator, and he contended that this was in contradiction to the intentions of the original promoters. Mr McKeen declared that the Bill, if passed, would leave the administration of the Act at the mercy of unscrupulous employers, who would be able to prevent any case in which they were interested from going to the Arbitration Court. Even if the case were allowed to go to the Court, and an award were made, the employers would still have a “come-back,” because they would induce the Minister to have an order-in-Council issued, exempting them from the provisions of the Award. “TOWN v. COUNTRY.” Mr Mason said that nothing could generate class-war and a feeling of “town v. country’-’ more than the Bill before the House. He had more respect for the intellect of the farmers of the Dominion, than to think they had any respect for the arguments advanced by the Minister. The provision in the Bill, giving the Minister power by Order-in-Council to exclude any specified industries or persons from the operation of the principal Act, was pernicious. Mr Polson said that it was necessary, at the present time, to strike the shackles from industry, and the farmers would welcome the measure as much as the industrialists would. The farmers had been harassed by attempts to place their industry under Court awards. It would be disastrous to the farming industry in New Zealand, if it were subject to the Court’s awards. The House adjourned at 5.30’p.m. LABOUR CRITICISM. The debate was continued when the House resumed this evening. Mr Semple said that the Minister’s defence of the Bill rang with insincerity. The proposed power to wipe out all agreements, and to enforce piecework conditions, in themselves condemned the Bill. Employers, after excluding their industries from the operation of the Act, would smash the workers’ conditions, by forcing piecework on them. Unscrupulous employers would set the pace, and would make it impossible for the decent employer to live in industry, unless he kept pace. It was all a matter of competition, and the man who broke down conditions most would come out best. Stating that he accepted the Minister’s assurance, that it was not intended to destroy the arbitration system, Mr Smith said that, in the light of the misery and privation existing to-day, it was Parliament’s duty to see if it could hot lighten the burden of the sufferers, by an amendment of the Act. He believed that the Bill would afford relief by sharing the benefits, which industry could afford, among a greater number of workers. He mentioned that he was not in total agreement with the clause which gave Cabinet power by Order-in-Council to exclude specified industries from the operation of the Act. He considered that this power should be invested in Parliament, rather than in Cabinet. Mr Connolly said he feared that, if , the Bill went through the House, it , would certainly leave the Arbitration Court in a helpless and useless posi- ; tion. He believed that several amendments were necessary regarding the . Arbitration Act, and that much good ' could be done in the interests of both r employers and workers, if this lasi , were set about in a proper manner. ' He complained that the Bill before the House would have the effect of abolishing the Court, and consequently he could not support it in its present form. He had said, during the election campaign, that this would be his attitude, and he intended to stand by that undertaking. The debatfe was adjourned when the House rose at 11.50 p.m. „

MR O’BRIEN’S SPEECH. [SPECIAL TO “STAB.”] WELLINGTON, March 10. Speaking on the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill, in the House to-night, Mr O’Brien declared that the Bill emanated from the employers’ organisations, and he wanted to know how wealthy

people were able to dictate to the Government. The Minister of Labour had displayeda woeful ignorance of the effect of the Bill, when moving the second reading. He challenged anyone on the Government benches to cite a single instance in which the Arbitration Act had prejudiced the farming industry; nor could he understand the statement of the ex-Min-ister of Labour (Mr Smith) that the employers were unable to employ workers because of the restrictions of the Act. The Government was not prepared to accept the verdict of the Arbitration Court Judge in the matter of wages, and was therefore allowing the employers a free hand. He appealed to those Government members with a vestige of Liberalism left in them, to remember the principles ennunciated by Mr Pember Reeves and Mr Seddon, in putting the Act on the Statute, Book. Though some members might think that the Bill would help industry, he was quite sure they ignored the effect of the measure, so far as the protection of the workers was concerned. Why would the Government not admit that its object was to force wages back to 8/- per day? It would be far more manly to repeal • the Act altogether, than to do what was proposed. The act was to be done away with at a time when it suited nobody else but the Employers’ Federation, and all the Prime Minister’s much-boasted Liberalism was thrown overboard' at one stroke.

PETITION REJECTED.

WELLINGTON, March 10-

When the House met at 2.30 p.m-, the leader of the opposition presented a petition, signed by union secretaries claiming to represent all. the industrial workers in the Dominion. The petitioners requested that, as the Industrial, Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill was not to be referred to a committee of the House (thereby preventing representations being made in the ordinary way), an opportunity should be afforded for representations to be submitted before the' Bar of the House- It was stated that the Bill would deal a fatal blow at the whole arbitration system. Mr Holland asked the Prime Minister whether he would give an opportunity for* the House to discuss a motion relating to the prayer of the petitionMr Forbes said he did not think that any good purpose could be served in this way. Both he and Mr Hamilton had met representatives of the employers and the workers on Tuesday and Wednesday, and a full opportunity had been afforded for placing suggestions before the Government. Mr Parry: What about the members of the House? Mr Forbes: There are 24 members of the Labour Party, and we will have an opportunity to hear them voicing those opinions in the House. Continuing, Mr Forbes said that what was wanted was informationThere was no advantage to be gained simply by calling witnesses from the North Cape to the Bluff- Ample time would be allowed during the second reading for all views to be placed before the House.

LIQUOR ADVERTISEMENTS.

WELLINGTON, March 10.

Mr Chapman gave notice of intention to introduce the electoral Amendment Bill, 1932. The following Bills were introduced and read a first time. Electoral Amendment Bill (Mr Black) and the Licensing Amendment Bill (Mr Langstone). Explaining the latter Bill, Mr Langstone said that it sought to amend the Act, to enable newspapers in nolicense and proclaimed areas to publish liquor advertisements. He pointed out that newspapers published outside, but circulating in these areas, were able to publish such advertisements. His Bill proposed to add a proviso to the clauses dealing with this subject, with a view to stipulating that the publication of liquor advertisements in newspapers published within or outside no-license areas, should not be deemed as soliciting for orders within the meaning of the Act. This would place all the newspapers on the same footing. SALARIES AND WAGES. Mr Wright presented a. petition on behalf of the teachers’ public service, and railway employees’ organisations, asking that there should be no further reductions in salaries and wages. RENTS AND INTEREST. [special to “stab.”] WELLINGTON, March 10. It is understood that, in the course of his reply to a deputation from the Alliance of Labour and the Wellington Trades and Labour Council, yesterday afternoon, concerning the I.Cand A. Amendment Bill, now before the House, the Prime Minister gave a direct hint that, as soon as the Arbitration Amendment measure has beea passed, legislation will be introduced by the Government with the object of reducing rents and interest.