ARBITRATION LAW

Grey River Argus, 9 May 1936, Page 7

ARBITRATION LAW

BILL FOR REVIVAL Second Reading Debate (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, May 8. The second reading debate on the Indusltrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill was resumed in the House of Representatives- by Mr. Smith, who said he would support the reintroduction' of compulsory clauses, but unless a worker was protected more under the Bill he would be no better off because costs would go up., and, some industries would bo unable to stand the additional cost. Mr. Sullivan; We have already said we would do that. Mr. Smith said the cost of living was creeping up in many ways now. He considered {that some employers had nut played the game, after the compulsory clauses were repealed, but acted’ In a way detrimental to the interests of the employees. He claimed that the last Government had not smashed the Arbitration Act and killed the Arbitration Court, and he quoted a report showing that 404 awards were registered under the Court last year. Mr. O'Brien; At low wages. Mr. Smith; No, not at low wages. He said he desired to see the conditions of the workers improved, but thought in some- ways the Bill was going too far. Mr. Armstrong said it was the intention of the Government not only to see that working people were remunerated reasonably for the- service they rendered society, but the Government would see the workers were not unreasonably exploited regarding the cost of Thousands of workers were without awards to-day, but there were thousands of others who were working under agreements which had the force of awards and the conditions embodied in them were the only conditions the cmployers saw fit to agree to. Most, of the" workers were economically forced to accept because of the slump conditions. on the employers’ . terms. There was nothing in the Bill that gave rights to working people that did not give equal rights to the employers of labour, and if the employers of labour had made a request to the Government for preference to unionists for employers it would have been done. Some leading employers had told him there- should bo preference to unionists on both sides, and he was inclined to agree, and if the emplovers made that request. they would get’ it. He thought the request would be made before long. Mr. Armstrong thought most people would agree that the wages in NewZealand were far too low. Low wages meant low prices and unemployment, and the Labour Party wanted to do its best f° r people, and every section of the community. Low wages spelt disaster to business generally. Air Polson; The farmer does not want low wages. Mr. Armstrong: I am pleased to hear that. Mr. Armstrong said it was absurd to suggest the Bill gave a Union official the right to enter any person’s home. It was a direct and wicked misrepresentation of the clause to sat so. He was receiving letters from women who were working under sweating conditions, and from men . employed by wealthy firms at starvation wages. They would have -the right to -approach the Arbitration Court. There was a reign of terror in New Zealand to-day. The workers were afraid to complain .because they might lose their jobs, A division was taken on the motion for committal, the voting being 50 to 17 in favour, qnd the House weut into committee. Speaking on the short title, Mr. Hamilton said that the amendments brought down were more in line with the Opposition view-points than the Labour viewpoint, Air. Holland referred to the basic wage, and said that originally the Bill provided the wages should be fixed on the basis of a man. w-ife and two children, but some trade union secretaries appeared before the Labour Bills Committee, and asked that it should be altered to three children. He (Air. Holland) asked on what grounds. The first secretary said he had been into twenty thousand homes in Wellington, and the other said he had no statistical evidence to give. Mr. Holland said the latest figures available were the 1926 census. which. showed in New Zealand there were 256,000 adult male wage earners. They had dependents upon them altogether of 253.000 children. /I. voice: How many were married.

Mr. Holland: Of the 256,000 adult male workers, 153,000 were married. He suggested the Minister should reconsider the whole question because if the wage were fixed on that basis, New Zealand could not possibly pay, because they had not the- money to pay it, and not the people to maintain. They would provide for 103,000 wives who were not married, and 537,000 children -who were not yet born. By providing for a man wife and three children, they wore providing that industry should carry 640,000 more persons than actually existed, and he sincerely suggested the Minister should takci those figures into consideration. Eighty-six per cent, of male workers had less than three children, 6} per-cent, had more than three, 74 per cent had three. These figures showed the proposal was 92| per cent wrong and 7£ per cent right. Progress was reported.