ARBITRATION BILL

Gisborne Times, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 12866, 21 May 1936, Page 5

ARBITRATION BILL

DEBATE IN LEGISLATIVE CHAMBER BASIC WAGE PROVISION MAY BE MADE FOR . OVER THREE CHILDREN EXTENSION OF PENSIONS LAW HINTED' (Press Association). WELLINGTON. May ,20.

The debate on the Industrial: Conciliation and. Arbitration Amendment Bill was eontimiedi jn, the Legislative Council by the Hon. V. Ward, who said, that though he could subscribe to many clauses, he could not .subscribe: to compulsory unionism. He submitted that children should not be included in the basic wage, but that, they should be catered for in some other direction. He was in favor of compulsory arbitration. but both sides should suffer equally in awards broken. He. intended to support tile Bill. The Hon. R. M.ostsors su'd be favored organised unionism. There was divided opinion in the country and especially in Labor circles, whether there should bo. compuLory arbitration. and bad the lb'32 amending legislation been given a longer trial it might have been more isuceessfnl. Though he supported the basic wage tho basis provided in. tho Bill was wrong;. Tho. needs of children could he dealt with under Family allowance legislation. Surely a man with three ch'ldren should not; he. penalised. The Hon. T. Bloodworth said that awards wore, made under the 'amending Act because the workers realised the any award was bettor .than none. The Labor opinions referred to by Mr Masters wore individual opinimi.;;. The collective opiirOn was now reflected in the Bill. The, country owed more to trade union secretaries. than it was willing to admit. The union, funds would go in whatever wav: tho unions: wished them to go. and the way the law allowed. Tie did not favor compulsory unionism. Tho Hon. D. Buddo supported the Bill.

The Hon. T. o’Byrn.e said that, employers need not bo afra’d of compulsory unionism. Replying, Mr Fagan, dealt teth awards made under the 1932 legislat’on, and said that the statement that less than 10 per cent, had been cancelled was misleading, as Dominion! awards had. ini many cases been replaced by local awards. From a report prepared in June, 1934, it then appeared that since April, 1932. 191 awards and agreements had been made, superseding 115 awards and agreements, while 96 awards and agreements had been wholly cancelled. Mr Fagan indicated ihat, steps would probably be. taken to cater for the man who lindj more than three children, and also there was a probability of the extension of the pensions law in the direction of making Women who had reared children, eligible for a pension though ineligible owing to ase. Women who reared children had done something for the, State, and should, be compensated. It was also desirable to see that all children, whether of rich or poor parents, should be, properly catered for.

M hen the Bdl was hi the committee stage, the Hon. W. Perry moved to give the court, power to reconsider the basic wage annually instead of half- yearly. The amendment was defeated bv 22 to 9.

Mr Perry also moved, to restrict, the basic wage to two children, instead of three.

The amendment, was defeated on the voices.

The Hon. Hayward, moved the deletion of the compulsory unionism clause.

Tho Hon. Perry supported him. The clause was retained bv IS votes to 13. '

The Bill was read a third time by 24, votes to 7 and passed.