THEN AND NOW

Grey River Argus, 15 March 1932, Page 5

THEN AND NOW

ARBITRATION ACT Holland on its History (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, Alarch 14. Labour’s attitude towards industrial arbitration was outlined by A.[r H. E. Holland in the House to-night, when speaking in the second reading debate on the amending bill. The Government members, Air Holland said, irrespective of the consequences of the last 10 per cent, cut, had urged in their speeches that wages would have to come down. This statement, which was strangely in conformity with the statement issued by the Employers’ Federation—a document actually used by many of the Alembers—made him wonder how far it was proposed to reduce wages, and what figure would be considered the irreducible minimum. The fact that only a fortnight very often separated a man and his wife from starva--1 tion seemed to be quite overlooked, 1 and. bad as was the plight of the farmer, he considered the position of the wage earner was infinitely worse. This Bill, Air Holland said, was but a phase in a long series of fights between Capital and Labour in this country. The Labour Party had attacked the machinery of the Arbitration Act when it had been found that this machinery had been manipulated against the working class. The changing of economic conditions changed also the viewpoint of the employers toward the Court, with the result that, when times were bad, they desired to bring wages down to the lowest possible figure. It was this outlook which had prompted Air Goodfellow to suggest that wages in this country should be reduced to 8s a day. Air Holland recalled the words of Rt. Hon. Wm. Pember Reeves, and Air Smith then interjected: “That was 40 years ago!” Air Holland: “Yes; but I am trying to tell the honourable member, who is thinking in terms of 100 years ago, the Sentiment of the times.” Air Smith: “Do you still believe in labour leg irons?”

Air Holland: “The hon. member is leg-ironed to the Reform Party at the present time!”

Continuing, Air Holland reviewed briefly the history of industrial arbitration in New Zealand. Recalling the early ’nineties, when the Maritime Strike occurred. Air Holland said that the Government of that day, which was the equivalent of the Government of to-day, did not hesitate to use the existing legislation and to enact more legislation for the use of the employers. The reactions to this were reflected in the formation of the Liberals and the enactment, after several rejections by the Upper House, of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The early operation of the Court, however, did not inspire the workers with confidence in the system. Several strikes occurred simply because ridiculous conditions were imposed on men. Coal miners, for example, were forced to eat their lunch in 15 minutes, while the members of the Court who issued that dictum tock two hours off for their’s. The Waihi and Huntly strikes, featuring bogus Unions sot up byGovernment assistance against the men, left their trail of disaster and heavy loss of life. Strangely enough, the men who were to-day seeking the abolition of the Arbitration Court had at the time of the 1913 strike armed themselves with batons and weapons of a more dangerous character to force the workers back to work, and to uphold the Court. The time had been chosen by the employers and by the authorities for a conflict, and illegal methods had been adopted to achieve their purpose. While it was in their interests to enforce the conditions of the Court in the year 1913, the same

men were prepared to waive the Court to-day, because they believed that they could better their own conditions without it. Juries had been deliberately packed, and decisions had been obtained which, otherwise, would not have been given. Circumstances like those shown by this historical record made one understand why the wage earners at that time did not possess confidence in the Court, nor, indeed, in the em ployers. This particular Bill would lengthen the hours of labour and the natural consequence would bo the displacement of greater numbers of men from industry.

Air Holland advocated shorter hours, forty years ago he had opposed the Court, and, if similar circumstances arose, he would do the same to-day. The Government, to-day, was not acting on its own volition; but the members were voicing the opinions of the Employers’ Federation. He appealed to the House to destroy the Bill at the first opportunity.