N.Z. Labour Laws

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXVI, Issue 112, 24 April 1936, Page 5

N.Z. Labour Laws

AMENDING BILL More Efficient Working ol Department DEBATE IN THE HOUSE ib- Telegraph—Frew A»»oeutioa.> WELLINGTON, April 24. The second reading of the Laboug Department Amendment Bill wag taken in the House of Representatives this morning. The Hon. H. T. Armstrong eaid it was purely a machinery measure that would make possible the more efficient working of the department.

The Hon. A. Hamilton (Nat.) thought that no particular importance was attached to any of the amendments. He stressed the need for consolidation of the Labour laws. Hu thought it wise to strengthen the head of the department as was proposed. Mr. J. A. Lee (Govt.) quoted figi.ii s showing the number of inspe luri visits to shops and factories had d< creased very materially since 1930-31. The department, he said, had become a dead letter. The present Minister would operate the machine loi tue benefit of employees. The Hon. F. Langstone (Govt.) sc id that in the past workers had been forced to strike to extract the litue that should have been given freely bad the employers been intelligent. Employers had opposed everything of a progressive nature. The position today was similar to that of a ne\. tenant entering a house that had been kept by a slatternly housekeeper and had to clean up the mess that had been left. It was merely a matter of housekeeping. The previous Government did everything it could to break up and destroy organisations of workers of the Dominion. The reduction of wages and the abolition of the Arbitration Court were acts inimical to the workers, and decent-minded employers were forced to follow the example of those who forced down wages. There was a lot to be said for collective bargaining, and the Bill provided an opportunity for ,workers to organise in the interests of workers.

ON THE WRONG TACK. The speaker at this stage pointed out that the Minister was referring to the wrong Bill. Mr. Langstone said he thought that the I.C. and A. Bill was before the House. However, both Bills were of a similar nature. Mr. W. J. Jordan (Govt.) asked if it was the Minister’s intention to transfer permanently to the Labour Department those men of the Post and Telegraph Department who were working at present under the department, also whether men engaged at low wages, almost relief rates, will be engaged us officers of the department. Thev were looking for men who would administer the act sympathetically and efficiently, especially now that awards were to be established, and who would see that proper wages were paid. 'The department should track down allegations of employees signing for more than was being paid. Employers as well as employees had to be protected in that matter. How could a man contract for a big job till he knew what wages he had to pay? Mr. W. J. Polson (Ind.) said that Mr. Lee had led the country to believe that the late Government had been slack, that it had neglected to protect the workers of the country, and that generally it had been guilty of improper practices in its administration of labour legislation. His experience was that great pressure was brought to bear on the Government, due to the depression, to ease up a little and they refused to do it. He considered it a grave reflection not only on the Government but on the department to say that they had neglected work that should have been undertaken. He paid a tribute to the employers in the last few years for sacrifices they had made in order to keep employees in work. He thought the sacrifices made by employers were not sufficiently recognised.

FAIR ADMINISTRATION. Mr. W. J. Broadfoot (Nat.) said that he did not think the Government were the only ones who desired that malpractices which had been jeferred to should cease. He contended that although there might have been one or two weaknesses in the past labour laws, much good had been done. It had been said that the law was administered for the strong, but he thought there was no place where the law had been administered with greater impartiality than in New Zealand. Mr. W; A. Bodkin (Nat.) said that in every department in recent years rigid economy had been enforced and travelling expenses curtailed as much as possible. As a result the number of inspections had been curtailed, but Mr. Leo had not said how many offences han been discovered and in how many cases the department had failed to prosecute. Mr. R. A. Wright (Ind.) said that the average decent employer waa entitled to fair play, and be asked for no more than that. Mr. W right therefore asked that officials of the department bear that in mind and give him sympathetic consideration. Some people regarded the employer as a rogue, thug and thief, who was out to beat the workman and rob him if be possibly could, and, though there were some employers to whom such epithets might be applied, Mr. Wright asked that all employers should not be judged bv the standard of that particular man. Mr. W. J. Endcau (Nat ) said that it was a most reprehensible position that an employee should have to sign for a higher wage than he received and such practice could not be allowed to continue. He asked the Minister to tell the House what the cost of the provisions of the Bill would be, Mr. H. 8. Kyle (Nat.) thought the Labour Department had administered the law satisfactorily in the past. The Bill was nothing more than more bureaucratic government. The whole Bill was only a delegation of the power of the Minister to somebody else. He did not think the present Government bad much mess to clean up and hoped tho country would not be in a greate* mess at the end of three years than if) was at present. The House then took the liincheoi, adjournment.