Industrial Relations Bill Given Second Reading

Northern Advocate, 29 July 1949, Page 2

Industrial Relations Bill Given Second Reading

WELLINGTON, Fri. (P.A.). —The Minister of Labour, in honeyed words instead of his usual gall and wormwood, had painted a picture of an industrial love-nest, but first he must get rid of the cuckoos. Mr F. W. Doidgo (o—'Tauranga) said this in the House of Representatives last night when the Industrial Relations Bill was given its second reading. What was there in the bill to suggest that any real discipline could be applied against troublemakers? he asked. If the Government remained as weak and penitent as ever while the militants became more aggressive, the Government would get nowhere. The attempt to promote industrial harmony through this bill could be likened to using a feather duster to destroy a wasp’s nest.

Industrial harmony should not be difficult to achieve in a young country like New Zealand, where there were no real class distinctions, and 95 per cent of the workers were honest and hard-working. Mr Doidgo added. The Minister of Works (Mr Semple; said there was no one more anxious than he—-and he had lived through the hurlyhurly of industrial life —to see harmonious relations established between employers and employees. There had never been a time when industrial harmony was more needed than today.

He would urge workers not to let preachers of foreign doctrines control their unions. Mr J. J. Maher (O—Otaki): The red-eyed monsters. NO REASON FOR STRIKES Mr Semple: Yes, that’s what they are. There is no reason on God's earth for any strike to take place in this country. Mr Semple said the workers had been led up the garden path by the Communists, who were traitors to the trade union movement. They had not been fighting for the lot of their fellow workers, hut for the power to hand over the British Commonwealth to Stalin.

“If the British Empire goes, we go down the drain too," said Mr Semple. Opposition voices: Hear, hear. The Minister cf Labour (Mr Mc'Lagarp replying said both parties had acclaimed the bill, yet the Opposition, while still saying the hill was their idea, had. with a few notable exceptions, condemned it by tell, hook and candle. The Employers' Federation and the Federation of Labour had publicly approved the hill, and the Manufacturers’ Association had expressed its aopreciatiou to him. CHIEF PURPOSE The bill's chief purpose was not *o settle industnal disputes hut to create harmonious relationships which would avoid disputes as far as possible and facilitate the settlement of such disputes as occurred, in spite of improved relations. Disputes could not be entirely eliminated, but the silly disputes planned by wreckers could be eliminated entirely if the people concerned were determined. Far from deteriorating, the position in regard to loss of working time through disputes had improved in recent years. Last year. working days were lost through industrial disputes, compared with the record of 210.812 days lost in 1923. 119.208 days lost in 1921. and 108.605 days lost in 1932. 548.316 working days Were lost through disputes. For the latest five-year period. 1944-1948, the figure was 323.265. or 60 per cent of that for the comparable period after the First World War. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS Another and far worse cause of loss of working time was industrial accidents. continued Mr McLagan. Figures excluding accidents on the waterfront, in coalmines and in sea transport from 1943 to 1946 totalled 164,311 days lost, while days lost through industrial accidents in these four years totalled 3,738,954. which was about 23 times greater. Compared with other countries— Canada, the United States. Great Britain and Australia—New Zealand had much the best record so far as days lost in industry were concerned, and even in the industries where a greater number of industrial troubles occurred. New Zealand's record was good. But it was not as good as it could be. A complete answer to the suggestion that the Labour Department should administer the bill was in the fact that, although there were certain things that the Labour Department could do, it could not get its recommendations accepted as readily as could a joint body of employers and employees. The bill was given its second reading.