I.C. AND A. ACT

Grey River Argus, 17 March 1932, Page 2

I.C. AND A. ACT

AMENDMENT BILL Mr O’Brien’s Speech Speaking on the second reading of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, Mr J. O’Brien, Member for Westland, strongly criticised the Bill. Ho said:— OUTSIDE INFLUENCE. Sir, this Bill is perhaps worthy of those who introduced it. I am not going to blame anyone personally for doing that for I know that the measure has made its appearance in the House simply because someone is obeying the orders of an outside organisation. One does not need to be a wizard in order to know of the movements which have been made during the last month or two, one does not need to be wise to know where some people spend their time in this city. This Bill is the result of the activities of an organisation known as the Employers’ Federa tion. Whether the Employers’ Federation dictated the terms to the Prime Minister or the Minister of Labour—or, perhaps to the hon. member for Stratford, for he is a member of that organisation—one does not know, but. what this House wants to know in why this organisation which is compos ed of the wealthiest people in the Dominion is able to dictate terms to the Government and have a Bill of this description introduced into this House. I was pleased indeed to note the tenoi of the speech delivered by the hon. member for Mid-Canterbury for it showed that that hon. gentleman at any rate, is not chained to the policy of the present Government, and can see a little further than other members on the Government benches. Perhaps the hon. member has about him some vestige of the old liberalism to which the United Party members on the Government benches are pledged. T hoped to see more of them stand up and protest against this Bill, but most of them have been silent. We have heard rumours that some members on the Government benches were opposed to the Bill, but the hon. member for New Plymouth told us that they* are unanimously in favour of it. It would appear that twenty United Party mem- , bars are in favour of repealing the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

MINISTER IGNORANT OF ACT. I If any member of the House desired to have a definite explanation of the provisions of the measure and its effects, he must have been sadly disappointed with the speech of the Minister of Labour this afternoon for ho displayed the* most woeful ignorance of its provisions, and its probable effect upon the members of certain unions who will have no protection left. POLITICAL WEATHERCOCKS. Now, the hon. member for Stratforc* perhaps knows more about the Bill than anybody else. I would not be at nil surprised if he had some hand hi framing it, since he has made certain statements outside the House in connection with the Bill. However, Ids argument, when he was speaking during this debate, was most extraordinary. I daresay, of course, that he is doing the work that he was sent hero to do. But, unfortunately' for the hon gentleman, some of us who have been in the House just as long as he has know that he has completely boxed the compass since he came here. I can remember the speech made by him when the late Sir Joseph Ward brought down his first Budget as Prime Minister in the United Government. The hon. gentleman said then that, the legislation outlined would do as Abrahaih Lincoln said—give every man a farm. Then, the hon. K entleman showed how he was prepared to back up that leg islation by voting against every clause of the legislation which would give effect to the Budget. So far as the Bill now before the House is concerned. I one of the most extraordinary statements made by the hon. member for Stratford was, that labour was the only commodity beyond the law of supply and demand. Does the hon. gentleman think, then, th?»t :< ? no call for labour, the worker should nave no reward at all. Because there is no call for labour, there must be no recompense, and the working man must starve. Is that the philosophy of the hon. member? Mr Polson: That, is rubbish.

Mr O’Brien: Well, T must have misunderstood tho hon. gentleman. Did ho not say that the only commodity—and labour is a commodity—that was beyond the law of supply and demand was labour, and, if there is no demand for it, there can he no wage? No wage means that tho working man must starve. Hon. members have said from time to time that the restrictions imposed under tho Act have held un tho farming community. I have asked that cases bo quoted, and nobody on the Government benches has been able to quote a single case. APOLOGISTS. Tho hon. member for New Plymouth to-night indicated his support of tho Bill. T was surprised when that hon. gentleman supported the measure. It appears to me that the hon. gentleman has turned himself into the arch-apolo-gist of the House; it is well known to those who study these things that none are so intolerant as those who have changed their views in a short time. Therefore, we had the hon. gentleman for New Plymouth making his sweeping tirade this evening. He said that employers could not employ men because of the Arbitration Court restrictions, but he did not quote a single case in support, of his statement. lie certainly mentioned the £l/17/6 a. week relief wages. -Why did not the hon. gentleman, if he wished his speech to be effective, mention a few instances in which employers had been pre-

vented from employing men because of the restrictions imposed by the Act?. I could deal with further points in the. speech, but time will not permit. The honourable gentleman declared that wo have to view the proposed legislation in the light of the depression. Mr Smith: We have got to face the facts.

Mr O’Brien: Does the* honourable gentleman know the reason for the introduction of the Act? Does he take that into consideration? He has appeared before the Court on behalf of unions and he has been an assessor in tho Conciliation Council, and he must know that, the awards of the Court are based only on the bare necessaries of life for a man and wife and two children. But, according to him, those bare necessaries of life are not to bo given. Mr Smith: I did not say that. Mr O’Brien: In effect that it what the honourable gentleman says. His statement is that wo must view the proposed legislation in the light of the depression. I submit that it is a machine that will bring wages lower than a judge of the Arbitration Court is prepared to bring them down to today. In other words neither the honourable gentleman nor his Government is prepared to trust the Court with the employers appeal for wage reductions. Ho quoted the Honourable W. Pember Reeves, and I wondered whether he knew very much about that gentleman. It would do the honourable member good if he held the opinion of the Honourable W. Pember Reeves on this matter. I do not know how he came to quote him. WHAT WOULD R. J. SEDDON SAY? However, for the benefit of the honourable member and any of the United Party members who may have a vestige of Liberalism loft in them, I shall quote a few lines from a speech of the late Richard John Seddon reported in Hansard, volume 69, page 898: “And who suffers by this? It is the poorer people of the country. The small farmers are gradually being drawn into opposition to the unionists, to the labouring men, the seamen, and the firemen. and those engaged in tho associated trades. I regret ’t ■extremely. I do honestly trust that the farmers of this country will co-operate with labouring men engaged in the various trades and who have joined unions. I do trust that they will be joined together by the bonds of union and will not be crushed out by capital.” Tho right honourable gentleman goes on: —“An effort is now being made to widen tho gap between the working people and the farmers. I trust. Sir, that the solid good sense of tho farmers will not bo blinded by what has been set forth by some honourable gentlemen and tho press. '

Those words are as true today as when they were spoken, and I commend them to honourable members op the Government benches. With refer once to thp Bill itself, while honor'* able gentlemen may quite honestly think that it. will help industry and perhaps start one or two small industries, I am quite sure they do not take into consideration the effect this Bill will have on those who work for wages, on those wh ) will have no p’< lection loft: if these clauses are carried into effect. The Bill will lake away the last vestige of protection to ti e workers from the rapacity of predatory employers. SHORT HISTORY OF ACT.

Just for a few moments I would like to give honourable members a short, history of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. There was a time in this country when work was scarce and men were plentiful, when the wages paid wore far below the subsistence level, when it was impossible for men and women to exist on the wages paid by some of the em ployers. People were receiving starvation rates of pay, and the only opportunity they had of bettering their conditions was to go on strike, which they did very frequently. These continual struggles between employers and employees were regarded by certain old-time Liberals as a waste of time, with the result that the Industrial Con cilintion and Arbitration Act was brought into existence for the purpose of seeing that the workers in any industry should get sufficient to enable them to live at any rate—to give them the bare necessities of life. There have been times when the Tories of this country, the good Reformers, leaned on compulsory arbitration — even though they amended the legislation in some slight way—and used it for their own purposes. The Reformers had hardly got to the Treasuary benches in 1912 when they set about using the Act to assist in the formation of bogus unions—unions which are subsidised by the, employers. If honourable members will cast their memories back to 1912 they will recollect a bogus union at Wa’hi, and that union was financed by the largo employers and merchants !in the city of Auckland. And the Government of that day sent scores of policemen to Waihi to protect the members of that bogus union. Finally, in the presence of the police, murder was committed at Waihi, with Government officials looking on. But wo heard very little of it. Were there any prosecutions when a certain union hall was smashed and a man in the hall was killed? Were there any prosecutions? No.

EMPLOYERS WANTED ACT. We had a Tory Government in office at that time, and they were prepared, for the purpose of firmly establishing a bogus union, to let even that kind of thing go by the board. And -what happened in 1913, the year later? As the honourable member for New Plymouth has said to-night, in that year the farmers rode to the seaports for the purpose of forming bogus arbitration unions on the water front—rode with batons and forced workers into those unions. They used at that time the compulsory preference clause of the Court which victimised thousands of men in this country. BOGUS UNIONS PROTECTED. They drew up rules of trade unions

in the Employers’ Federation office and compelled trade unions to adopt those rules. So well were the officials of these bogus unions protected that one man on the Auckland waterfront—for criticising—perhaps rather severely—an official of one of the bogus unions, was sentenced to 11 months’ hard labour. I remember the words he used. He said to the secretary of the bogus union; “You are at your old game again. You never were any good and you never will bo any good until you are dead.” For that he got 11 months’ hard labour. Many of the secretaries of the so-called unions have misappropriated funds, and then disappeared, and one did not hear of any prosecutions. Therefore at that time the Arbitration Court unions seem to have been of great assistance to the hon. gentlemen on tho ’Government benches. I do not think there is today a Liberal or United member sitting on those benches who does not know that what I am saying is absolutely true. However, the times have changed. MORE MEN THAN JOBS. There are now some 50,000 unemployed workers in this country, and it. m prophesied that the coming winter will see 70,000 unemployed. Tho hon. member for Stratford, I suppose, wants the law of supply and demand to operate as far as the workers are concerned. Why not admit that the object is to get wages back to 8/- a day, or even less? Why will they not admit that it is their object to take from a girl in a shop who at one time was getting 3/- or 4/- a week the protection she now has under the Act? Why not admit that the Bill will take from the girl who is working in a restaurant or private hotel, or in a licensed hotel for that matter, the little protection she has now? WOMEN AND GIRL WORKERS SUTTER MOST. There was a time, before these girls formed themselves into unions, when they had to work 16 hours a day for 8/- or 10/- a week. Some honourable gentlemen on the opposite benches can remember the time when a girl in a millinery shop or behind the counter had to start work at 2/6 or 3/6 per week. When a girl had to work for such wages, what position was she placed in? Hon. members will know the position of a girl working for from 2/6 to 5/- a week. Hon members must know that when girls or women cannot earn sufficient for their proper maintenance they are compelled to turn to something else. I will leave it to the imagination of hon. gentlemen what that is, and the same thing will happen again if this Bill goes through. I say that it is a contemptible Bill, and should not be allowed to become law.

Mr Speaker: That word is not allowable. Mr O’Brien: Then I will withdraw it, sir. I can remember that at the time when there were no wages hoards or Arbitration Courts I was on a visit to Tasmania. At that time provision for wages boards was brought in in Victoria, with the result flint the wages of girls in Victorian factories were raised. One gentleman conceived the idea of shifting his factory to Tasmania, where there were no such things as wages boards or Arbitration Courts. Some of the Tory papers of Tasmania pointed out how Victoria was losing the brush industry. Well, the brush industry was started in Tasmania, whore girls were paid as low as 5/- a week for ton hours a day, Arc those tho conditions the hon. gentlemen want to bring back into this country? If they do not then they must alter this bill, and the sooner they do so the better.

“ACT” WAGES ARE BARE NECESSARIES. I am quite sure it would be far better if the hon.gentlemen, instead of bringing in this Bill as they have brought it in would admit that the country or the employers could not afford to pay the minimum wage as laid down by the Arbitration Court. They have said it in effect if not in those exact words, that they cannot afford to keep the workers in the bare necessaries of lif-e. I feel quite sure that they cannot find one Judge of the Arbitration Court who would b ringin an award below that standard, and therefore they have had to hand tho workers over to the tender mercies of the rapacious employers, and you know what they will do. It would be far better, instead of bringing in a Bill like this which takes away from the workers every bit of protection that Arbitration Court has given them, to repeal the Act altogether. At any rate it would be far more manly. PREFERS TORIES TO UNITEDS. My time is going, and before I sit down I just wish to say that since I have been a member of this House I have always had a good deal of respect for the Reform members. They have been hard enough at times to deal with, but we always knew exactly where they were. They had a policy that I, for one, could not agree with. They seem to believe that the more money the wealthy man has the better for tho country. I know the Right Hon. William Ferguson Massey had that philosophy, and told mo so on several occasions. He believed that to be true, and because he believed that he wanted to legislate accordingly, and I honoured and respected those Reformers who believed that and honestly hold that opinion. I am sorry to say, however, that I cannot pay the same compliment to the hon. gentlemen who have for many years spoken with another voice, and have finally come over and joined up with the Reformers to do far worse than the Reformers ever intended to do. They have out-lleroded Herod in this direction.

The Right Hon. Mr Forbes: These are different times. Mr O’Brien: Different times! It is different men I am complaining about. However, I suppose one cannot expect too much from the hon. gentle man and his friends. To come right

down to the Bill I merely wish to remark that the original Act compelled men to come together and base their awards on the cost of living. JUDGE NOT TRUSTED. A Judge of the Supreme Court had two assessors with him and the witnesses came from both sides, and the final say rested with the Judge of the Court, but apparently to-day the right honourable gentleman cannot trust a Judge to make an award that will suit the employers, and therefore the Judge has to be got rid of. The Judge has to be got rid of; the award, as we know it, has to be got rid of; and compulsory arbitration has to be got rid of, just at a time when it. suits nobody but the Employers’ Federation; just at a time when the workers are supposed to be absolutely helpless, when there are 70,000 unemployed in the country; when one worker will contend with another for employment until wages are forced down lower than they have been for twentyfive to thirty years past in this country. And the right hon. gentleman does the work that the Employers’ Federation is asking him to do. All his boasted Liberalism is thrown over

Mr Speaker: The hon. gentleman’s time is up.