LABOUR LAWS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXX, 21 May 1936, Page 4

LABOUR LAWS

THE BASIC WAGE

COUNCIL DEBATES IX. AND A. BILL |Frora ‘‘The Mail’s” Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, 20th May. The Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill was discussed in the Legislative Council yesterday afternoon. Moving the committal of die Bill, the. Leader of the Council (the Hon. M. Fagan) said that the basic wage bad been a success in Australia., and lie had no doubt that it would be a success in New Zealand. Tlie clause giving back to the. workers the right to approach the Arbitration Court was most important. __For 38 years under the late Pember Reeves and the old Liberal administration the workers had had that right. Then the Act was amended in 1932, and voluntary arbitration Avas provided for. “I have never been able to understand what that term means,” said Mr Fagan. “The legislation was brought Gown and it took away protection from thousands of workers in the worst period of the depression.” Mr Fagan said that an advantage had been given to the unscrupulous employer, and the decent-minded employer had been put offside. The amended legislation had made it possible for a group of employers to attend conciliation proceedings. making up their minds beforehand that no agreement would be arrived at. They knew that if thev failed to ■ agree the workers’ right to refer the dispute to the Arbitration Court was gone. From 1932 to date there had been 97 cancellations of awards. Dealing with the 40-liour week, Mr Fagan said that while other countries were talking about it. New Zealand was prepared to net, and the Rill would enable the principle t.o.be tested. The Hon. R. Masters: ‘.‘Will it apply to all Government departments?” Mr Fagan: “I am not clear at the moment in respect to that.” COMPULSORY /UNIONISM The Hon. W. Hayward said that the Bill was full of doubtful benefits on one hand and definite penalties on the other. Mr Hayward said he intended to confine his criticism to the compulsory arbitration and compulsory unionism clauses. He contended that the amendment made in 1932 brought the Act more into line with the object in the mind of the late Mr Pember Reeves, who bad expressed the opinion that he did not think the Arbitration Court would be requisitioned a great deal. The Act was intended to settle industrial disputes and not to create them. Disputes had been created by the workers seeking to obtain impossible conditions. the large majority of workers in the Dominion had not availed themselves of the Act during its 42 years of operation. It was not possible to make a satisfactory contract through any Court.

Dealing with compulsory unionism, Mr Hayward said that it* was unjust for a minority to force their will on a majority. Mr Hayward said that some of the present Ministers of the Crown had suffered imprisonment because they strenuously objected to compulsory war service They stuck to their guns and went to gaol, rather than submit to compulsion. But what about those conscientious objectors now who did not wish to join a union? While in gaol the conscientious objectors bad been fed and clothed, but the others were to be dismissed unless they joined a union. “We scarcely appreciate what we are doing,” said Mr Hayward. “REBOUNDED TOO FAST” The Hon. J. A. McCullough said that Mr Hayward had attacked Arbitration laws all bis life. While be was not wholly sympathetic witli every clause in tlie Bill, yet he believed that it was in the best interests of the workers. Co-operation was tlie life of trade, and the Bill would enable those engaged in trade to co-operate. Mr McCullough said that- be was not at all satisfied that the Bill bad not rebounded too fast and too far, and that it did not in its present form contain clauses that experience might prove to be inimical to those whom it primarily sought to benefit. “I can see a danger that successful attempts may be made by powerful institutions to register unions that will operate in the interests of those institutions,” he said, “and I can also see a danger that compulsory unionism may lead to the enthroning of a powerful plutocracy of officialdom that may be tempted to put their own comfort and tlie emoluments of office before that of the persons belonging to the organisation whom they are elected to serve. But time, I hope, may prevent my fears being realised. I am keenly anxious to prevent a condition of affairs arising in this country where our union officials will be the friends and companions of stockbrokers and banking magnates, or that we will ever have a trade union official being offered a- reward of £25,C00 to write bis autobiography; but there is this danger.” The Hon. C. J. Carrington said that he was not in favour of compulsory unionism, but lie saw nothing to put in its place. Every worker should have the right to say whether he should join a union or not. In spite of that, however,' he would vote for the Bill. The Bill would tend to even up the difference between the good and the unscrupulous employer. The basic wage, he thought, should be computed on the needs of a man and his wife, and it was the duty of the State to provide for the children. A man with more than three children would be penalised under the Bill. The Hon. E. E, Lark said that with the establishment of a basic rate the Government was laying down the principle which would induce people to come to the Dominion and live under decent conditions. “Under this Bill we will not have a repetition of what happened at Waihi in 1912, where decent men had to go to gaol, not because they were conscientious objectors, but because they would not allow the Act to be administered in a coercive way,” he said. He contended that the employer would always select the militant unionist as his best worker. Tlie debate was adjourned.