Arbitration Bill

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXVI, Issue 111, 23 April 1936, Page 7

Arbitration Bill

MINISTER’S AIMS Measure Criticised By The Opposition COMMUNIST PRINCIPLES (B? Telegraph - L’lPsi Association.) WELLINGTON, April 22. In the House of Representatives this evening, the Hon. H. T. Armstrong moved the committal of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill. He said the Bill was one of the measures calculated to restore prosperity to the country. It was an honest attempt to institute a real system of conciliation and arbitration in place of the mockery they had had in the last few years. Other countries than New Zealand would be interested in the legislation, be cause it introduced a new principle.

The Court would understand from the Bill the intention of the Legislature, and unless an employer could show that what was intended was impracticable the Court would abide by the Act.

The Bill was calculated, he said, to give the working people a larger share ilian they had in the past of that which iheir labour produced. New Zealand produced more wealth per head of population perhaps than any other ‘.ountry in the world. Whatever degradation and poverty there were in othar parts of the world, there was no ua«d for it in New Zealand. MAN-MADE DISTRESS. fie claimed that distress in recent years in New Zealand was largely manmade. and the result of actions of the past Government. Many thousands of people to-day were without any protection at all, and it was a state of affairs that should not be allowed to exist another five minutes. The Bill gave direction to the Arbitration Court, after taking into consideration the condition of the industry, to fix a basic wage on the basis of a man, wife and three children, and having decided that the Court must not impose a lower wage on a man or woman of the community. The Court was asked to fix a 40-hour week as far as possible, not only in future, but existing awards, and there was to be no reduction in the earnings of the people. In most industries it could, and should, be applied, and the onus would be on the employers to show that ih their particular business the principle was not applicable. A FIVE-DAY WEEK. The Government wanted to see es tnbllshed as soon as possible a five-day

*eek for as many people as possible. Mr Armstrong instanced the hours worked in other countries, such a» tire United States and Great Britain. He quoted figures to show that not only could they work a 40-hour week In New Zealand, but they could work a 30hour week in many industries, and do it more cheaply than they could in 192 U with a 44-hour week. Certainly that could be done by machinery, but they should make every use of machinery to reduce the hours of workers.

He said that the value of production in factories for the year ended March 31, 1935, was £79,342,000. Wages were £13.244,000. The total expenses incurred in the running manufacturing concerns was £74,321,000, which meant that wages were only 18 per cent, of the value of the goods produced, and only 17 per cent of the cost of production; «o it seemed to him perfectly clear that that increase in wages could not possibly increase the cost of production by more than 1.8 per cent. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. He reviewed the events leading up to the introduction of conciliation and arbitration into New Zealand in 1894, and the repeal of the compulsory clauses of the Act in 1932, since when workers had no protection under arbitration law. As a result there were tens of thouiands of people to-day who were working under conditions which should not bt tolerated, and there was no reason why it should be allowed to continue. They were going back to a state of collective bargaining and giving either side a chance to refer disputes to the Arbitration Court.

To-day there was more poverty in New Zealand than he could remember, simply because the then Government went the wrong way about things. The Bill not only restored arbitration as existed a few years ago, but it laid down a system superior to anything they had had before. There was nothing to fear in the Bill, and industry could stand up to the conditions it imposed Most awards had lapsed, but they would be automatically revived by the passing of tho Bill, and nobody that desired an award would be refused it by the Court. AWARDS IN EXISTENCE. Mr A. Hamilton (Nat.) said it was not correct to say that most awards had lapsed. More than 90 per cent, of the awards which existed in 1932 were still in existence. Mr Armstrong: But they are of no use to the workers. Mr Hamilton said they were not returning to a system of collective bargaining, but to Court decisions. They were not going back to real arbitration, which the Opposition would support, but he was of the opinion that before long some unions would be defying the Court. Why should industries be compelled to work 40 hours a week when it was not suitable! Many industries were now working a 40-hour week, and that should be allowed to extend, not be forced, on industries. High wages were to be forced on industries whether they could stand it or not. Mr Hamilton claimed that the conditions and wages of those working full-time in New Zealand to-day compared favourably with similar workers anywhere in tho British Empire. There were many employers in no better position than the workers, and the Bill would increase their burden. Costs in New Zealand were already too high, and the Bill would increase them. In the building industry the increased costs would be 15 to 30 per cent. That would affect the rent the people would

have to pay for homes. Manufacturers’ costs would be increased seven to nine per cent. Higher working wages were often lost in increased costs, and it was just as well to keep costs down to a level with competitors. The Bill would widen the gap between the interval of costs and external prices. The Bill would put industries more in a strait-jacket than they were to-day, wnich might be what Labour desired, but the Opposition thought it was not desirable. He considered New Zealand to-day was enjoying as good a standard of living as most countries, He contended that the basic wage should be fixed on an hourly as well as a weekly basis. The Bill did not say which it was to he. DOMINION UNIONS. The Bill provided for Dominion unions, which was half-way to the old scare of One Big Union, and the Bill opened the way to centralising unions’ power in Wellington. It would be a mighty power which might have serious consequences. Ho doubted if all anions wanted compulsory arbitration. He thought voluntary arbitration should have been tried a little longer, and contended that there should be a penalty provided in the case of a union which did not obey the award. Ho criticised the compulsory prefetcnco to unionists, and said workers throughout New Zealand should note that, as it was a very objectionable clause. The Bill intruded too much on personal rights and personal freedom of workers. He claimed that there should be some exemption for managers and apprentices. Coming to the 40-hour week, ho asked the Minister to define the W'ord “impracticable” and said the provi sion might not be impracticable but it would bo very costly. Tho Bill gave the right io union officials to enter private homes, and that, he thought, was going too far. That right should be restricted to Labour Department inspectors.

Mr Hamilton criticised the abolition of the limit on union entrance dues and entrance fees. The Bill showed the intentions of the Labour Government, and the Bill would almost certainly decrease employment. The Government was careless of the effects it would have on industry. It would draw labour from farms into the towns, and would increase costs.

Mr B. McKeen (Govt.) said that the altitude of Mr Hamilton was one of irresponsibility and gross misrepresentation. He said optional arbitration was working so smoothly that within two years one hund ed awards were smashed and workers were working under intolerable conditions. The number of apprentices had very greatly declined, and there were more breaches of awards in the last four or five years than at any time in the history of the country, and it was during that time that Mr Hamilton was Minister of Labour. FACTORY WORKERS’ HOURS. There was a time when New Zealand was regarded as progressive, but in recent years New Zealand had probably lagged behind other countries, and the Government was endeavouring to improve tho conditions of workers. He said that the average hours of factory workers to-day was 43 a week, and by a reduction to 40 hours employment would be found for 7019 workers. He referred to the increase of the exchange and the imposition of the sales-tax, and said the present Government had to clear up the muddling and maladministration of the past Government.

Mr McKeen said that as the result of the Bill he was satisfied there would be greater harmony between workers and employers; that there would be an improved standard of living in New Zealand. and that the people would have more leisure. He would like to have seen the Bill go further, but was satisfied that later it would have to be consolidated. Mr W. J. Polson (Nat.) said that the Bill went further and deeper than the Minister and Mr McKeen had indicated in their speeches that night. He asked where the Government was heading to with a measqre of that kind.

POWERS OF RUSSIAN COMINTERN,

The Bill embodied the principles of straight-out Communism. The Government in future would have all the powers of the Russian Comintern. The Bill was compulsory on one side. Neither the employers nor the bulk of the people of New Zealand wanted the legislation, but they were going to have it forced upon them, and it would be another shackle upon industry. The Bill would mean higher prices to the farming community, which would have an adverse effect on it and would mean greater unemployment because of the Government ignoring the law of supply and demand. Mr Polson said that the basic wage was to be fixed on the average of a man, his wife and three children, an average that did not exist. Ho thought when the Bill became law and the people realised what it meant it would be the end of the Labour Party.

Mr R. A. Wright (Ind.) said he had always supported compulsory arbitra tion, and he agreed with the shortening of hours. He feared that in practice the Court would not use very much discretion when considering whether a 40-hour week was practicable unless it could be shown that tho industry would be almost ruined by its application. He said that the adoption of the 40-hour week in the Government service alone would mean the addition of £300,000 a year, and mean an increase in railway fares, freights and other things, so that the cost of living would be increased. Unless there was some way of raising money, about which he knew nothing, he was afraid the Bill would mean rising prices, which would be followed by an increase in wages, and that in turn would mean still higher prices, so they would have the old circle again. The debate was adjourned and the House rose at 10.30.