HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4407, 13 July 1901, Page 7

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FklDAlf, JULY 12. Tho Speaker todk the chair at 10.30 a.nu Industrial Conciliation and Ai'bltf'iltioi']. The inbved the secOud reading of tho Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Abb Aihhlidiiibilt Bill, the provisions Of which lid Shortly explained. tte said that {lie Bill whs or ah equitable; chataetbh add Contained no no ft dbpilrtui'fa froth the existing law. Clause .3 made prbWsibil for tho registering as an industrial union of any foreign Cditipahy carrying oh business in Im-w toJalautl through an agent. Other sections made it clear that trddo uuloiis may be bound by an award, and may be joined as parties. The principal Atb left robin for doubt on these points. The Bill prevented counsel front Uppbilrihg in connection with' an industrial dispute, even if he was acting under power of attorney. It was necessary to iimetifl tho Act to prevent tho anomaly now existing by which one section of a trades union might be working for certain wages tinder aii AWard of tho Arbitration Coilrt, whereas; another section might wotk for lesser wages. It was also proposed to remedy tho grievance new felt under which any union could not carry a resolution Without an absolute majority of the ihertlbcts. The Bill also dealt with such a grievance as that which had existed at tPaih!. Mr MONK said he was diametrically opposed to the statements that industrial peace now existed. Ho Was in favour of unions by which workmen might ho protected from the aVaricfo of employers; but tho compulsory machinery now legalised was creating continuous agitation and distrust. Young men were now compelled to leave New Zealand to learn the maritime industry, lie supported the Farmers’ Union. Mr HERRIKS Said He was not satisfied ns to the inclusion of “trade unions” as distinct from “industrial unions.” He quite agreed with the clause regarding Waihi, and considered that

in that case tho manager had made an error of judgment. Mr KL* denied that there was any .scarcity of labour in the colony. In the furniture trade they had had to send out of the colony to get workmen. The condition of tho New Zealand working classes was never belter than at, tho present time. He attributed this to the labour legislation. Mr G. W. RUSSELL held that ad workers should come under tho operations of the Act. Mr PIRANI suggested that an Light Hours Bill should be included in this measure, .so that if any ten workmen in a district applied to the Arbitration Court for the regulating of the hours of labour, that could be done. Ho maintained that tho districts were too unwieldy. An award made in Wellington could be enforced over a very wide '' Mr LA WRY said, in reply to Mr Monk, that there was never a period when boy labour was so scarce. Mr JAMES ALLEN held that a union ought not to go off the register while the award was running, since the employers could net go off the register. Tlic Bill, he pointed out, did not contain a. penalty clause against trades unions.

The PREMIER, in reply to Mr Atkinson said that the reason for the inclusion of trade- unions was this: Whilst the present Act brought in industrial unions, there was nothing to compel a trade union to he included as an industrial union. This- Bill remedied that defect.

Mr ATKINSON said that in that enso a penalty danse ought to have been provided. Ho pointed out that the Bill required alteration in certain respects because of some confusion which it might otherwise load to. The” PREMIER said that it would bo referred to. tho Labour Bills Committee.

Mr BOLLARD spoke of the boy labour question, and whilst be did not wish to sec the factories stuffed with boys, he hold that tho predent restrictions were too severe. One hoy to one Man lie 'suggested as the proper portionAir PALMER supported tho clause providing that no man should be dismissed because he asked his employer for a fair wage, and reviewed the history of the Waihi dispute. Air AIILLAR pointed out that, though it was urged that the Government should go slow with labour legislation, this Bill did not represent any great forward movement, with tho single exception of the clause providing that men should Hot bo dismissed upon representing a case for higher wages. As to tho shipping laws, there Was nothing to prevent boys from going to sea, but they hadmoro sense than to go to sea under the conditions existing at the present time.

Mr LAURENS ON support kI the Bill, and said that there Was a prospect of a large Maritime population in this colony. He did not agree with the statement that there was bitter industrial war proceeding in New Zealand. There was no doubt unrest, owing to the decrease in the price of produce, but the state of things ift New Zealand was nothing like that prevailing in other coun. tries. This result was entirely du e to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

Mr ARNOLD alleged that it very often happened that if the president or secretary of a union conducted a case for his union before the Conciliation Board or Court of Arbitration his services were dispensed with. It was lamentable, of course, that members of Corlciliation Boards should become labour agitators, but he asserted that employers’ representatives had also made use of their position in that way. The Souse adjourned at 1 p.m. I