SPEECHES BY LEADERS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21132, 15 March 1932, Page 11

SPEECHES BY LEADERS.

REPLY BY MR. COATES. METHOD FOR READJUSTMENT. WORKERS AMPLY PROTECTED. [BY TELEGRAPH.— PRESS ASSOCIATION."] W ELLINGTON, Monday. The debate on the second reading of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill was continued in the House of Representatives this evening. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. H. E. lloLand, said he had noted that when several members of the Government party, had risen to support the bill they had had in their hands a statement of the Employers' Federation. He had noted in nearly every case that the arguments had been identical with the matter contained in the federation's statement and this fact seemed to be significant. Members of the Government party had stated that wages must come down. It must be remembered that there had already been a 10 per cent, reduction and m addition many men were working only two or three days a week. Ho would like to know what the Government considered an irreducible minimum and whether it would constitute a decent standard of living. Thero could be no argument that this country could not afford to maintain a decent standard of living. Variation of Demands. Continuing, Mr. Holland said both employers and labour had at various times favoured the abolition or retention of tho Arbitration Court. For instance, on a rising market, the stronger unions favoured tho abolition of tho Court to enable them to bargain for better wages and conditions, while the employers favoured a retention of the Court. On the other hand, on a falling market, the workers, particularly tho weaker unions, favoured tho retention of the Court, while employers desired its abolition so that they could impose their own conditions. He stated that it had always been recognised that if the country was to have arbitration, it, must be on a compulsory basis, otherwise it could not be effective.

Mr. Holland contended that the hill, if passed, would lie followed by lengthening of hours and reductions in wages. Unemployment would incremse in consequence. It had been contended that the unemployment difficulty had been intensified by the arbitration system, but conditions in countries where there were no arbitration laws demonstrated that was not the case.

lie said members of the Government were not supporting the bill of their own volition, but were doing so at the instigation of the Employers' Federation. There were, in addition to workers, many business men, working farmers and professional men throughout the country who would bo sorry to see the measure become law. Position of Unemployed. The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coaies, Minister in Charge of Unemployment, said Mr. Holland had referred to a statement of the Employers' Federation. He for one had seen no such statement. Mr. 11. T. Armstrong (Labour —Christchurch East) : It was posted to every member of the House.

Mr. Coates declared the bill was not being put through on behalf of the Employers' Federation. There were two classes in the community suffering particularly at present. One class was constituted by the unemployed and their position was the worst. Mr. J. A. Lee (Labour —Grey Lynn) : And you are doing nothing for them. Mr. Coates: That is incorrect. Much has been done for them and more will be done. It is all governed by the amount of money at our disposal. Continuing, the Minister said the other class which was suffering as a result of the economic position was constituted by the farmers, and until their finances were restored it was impossible for a recovery to be effected in other directions. It had to be realised that the country was up against it. The prices of all products except gold had fallen. It had been recognised by experts that it would take at least two years for the Arbitration Court to review the position of all industries in the light of the altered economic conditions and it was thought that a quick method of reaching a readjustment was to enable the parties themselves to get together and arrive at satisfactory agreements. Protection by Public Opinion.

It had been said, Air. Coates continued, that employers were out to force down conditions. He pointed out that conciliation proceedings would be open to the press and public opinion would afford protection for the workers. He also considered that the statement that a bad employer would predominate would prove to be a fallacy, but if this position did arise, it would not take the Government long to provide a remedy. No man in this country was going to stand for unwholesome conditions.

Mr. F. Langstone (Labour— King Country) compared the Government's policy with the old surgical bleeding process, arguing that because of its lack of knowledge of appropriate remedies the Government was simply bleeding body politic and weakening the patient in tho process. Text of Amendment. The following amendment was moved by Mr. J. McCombs (Labour—Lyttelton) : —Whereas the original legislation embodying the principle of legal settlement of industrial disputes took three and a-half years to put on the Statute Book; whereas the originator of the Act, the Hon. W. P. Reeves, insisted that legislation would be worse than useless unless it provided for finality in the settlement of disputes; whereas the experience of the past 37 years has proved the soundness of the originator's central idea; whereas the Prime Minister, during tho recent general election period, gave a definite assurance that it was not the intention of the Government to destroy the Arbitration Act; whereas the proposed legislation will, in fact, destroy tho very foundation of the arbitration system by destroying compulsory arbitration; and whereas the interests of the whole community, including employers and employees, can best be safeguarded and maintained by the legal establishment of some tribunal to give a final decision in the event of a disagreement between the parties, that the bill be referred back to the Government, with the recommendation that it be redrafted in order to preserve the essential features of New Zealand arbitration law, namely, the settlement of industrial disputes by compulsory arbitration, where in the small percentage of industrial disputes a settlement is not arrived at by agreement or conciliation. Mr. P. Fraser (Labour— Wellington Central) seconded the amendment. The debate was interrupted when the House rose at midnight. Replying to the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes, said the debate would be continued to-morrow.