INDUSTRIAL WAR

Grey River Argus, 15 March 1932, Page 5

INDUSTRIAL WAR

GOVERNMENT’S LEAD Labour’s Appeal FOR SANER POLICY. (Fiom, our Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, March .14. In the debate on the Arbitration Act Amendment Bill, Mr Holland (else where reported) gave an outline o* the history of the law. Thereafter the Government was severely criticised by several Labour speakers, and finally, at 11.30 p.m., McCombs sprang a surprise by moving an amend ment to the second reading of the Bill. The amendment was as follows:—

‘ ‘ Whereas the original legisiatiot embodying the principle of the legal settlement of industrial disputes took, throe and a-half years to put on th-; Statute Book; whereas the originator of the Act, Mr Wm. Pember Reeves insisted that the legislation would be worse than useless, unless it provided for finality in the settlement of disputes; whereas the experience of the past thirty-seven years has proved the soundness of the originator’s central idea; whereas the Prime Minister, during the recent general election period, gave a definite assurance that it was not the intention of the Government to destroy the Arbitration Act; whereas the proposed legislation will, in fact, destroy the very foundations of the Arbitration system by destroy compulsory arbitration; whereas the interests of the whole community, including the employers and employees, can best be safeguarded "and maintained by the legal establishment of some tribunal to give a final decision in the event, of a disagreement between tile parties, the Bill be inferred back to the Government with a recommendation that it be redrafted in order to preserve the essential feature of the New Zealand Arbitration Law, namely, the settlement of industrial disputes by compulsory arbitration where, in a small percentage of industrial disputes, a settlement is not arrived at by agreement or conciliation.” Mr Peter Fraser seconded the amendment.

Mr Coates said that costs and conditions had to be brought into alignment with the reduced income of' th? primary producers. It would take two years to bring about the readjustments that the Government believed to be necessary if the industry were to be placed on a sound footing and unemployment reduced. It had been said that unscrupulous employers would set a lead and that the others would be forced to follow’. If bad employer; Were to dominate the position, the Go vernment would not take long to rectify that state of affairs. No man would stand for unwholesome conditions. To-day’s conditions were vastly different from those existing two years ago. It was a matter of speed, and of how quickly they could readjust themselves to the changed conditions.

Mr Nash: “This 'Bill was drafted word for word two years ago!”

Mr Coates said that there was much camouflaged hostility to the Bill, particularly by small trade unions, but they need not be apprehensive. The fear of those opposing the Bill was that the bad Greek would chase the good Greek out. Referring to Clause Two. whereby any specified industries or persons might, be excluded from the operation of“'tho Act, Mr Coates said that if abuse were to follow the proposals — he did not believe there would—then some right should be given to the Crown to see that these abuses did not creep in. Industry, he said, could not afford the existing wages for the work done. It was necessary to adjust wages and to adjust conditions The conditions demanded that they should immediately face the facts.

Mr Frank Langstone delivered a brilliant speech. He criticised the Government trenchantlv for its inactivity in tackling the chief problems of the day. Like the doctors of old before they had warned flu* science of surgery and before they had learn cd the elements of biology, the Gov eminent was employing the process of bleeding white the body politic until the patient wa» becoming gradually weaker under the strain. The present problem was not on econojmic one It was a monetary one. He added that the only problem was the dellci ency in our returns from our exportcommodities. Unless provision were made for the handling of this pro |?lem, he would not hold people out side Parliament responsible for any serious consequence that occurred. Ho would hold the Government responsible for its ineptitude and its failure to handle the problem, in the manner in which it should be tackled. Mr E. J. Howard, who followed Mr Langstone,'said Mr Langstone, by his forceful speech, had driven Mr Coate* from the Chamber. The Ministers sent was as empty as his speech had been empty of fair argument.