FORTY-HOUR WEEK

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22879, 13 May 1936, Page 9

FORTY-HOUR WEEK

"AN ECONOMIC LANDSLIDE " PROTESTS BY OPPOSITION PRIME MINISTER APPLIES CLOSURE (From Odb Parliamentary Reporte*) WELLINGTON, May 12. The clause in the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment BUI which provides for the general application of the 40-hour week in industry was fought strongly by the Opposition during the committee stages of the Bill in the House of Representatives this afternoon. A protracted discussion was stopped only by the Prime Minister, Mr M. J. Savage, resorting to the use of the closure. Mr W. J. Broadfoot (Opposition, Waitomo) started the discussion when he moved an amendment to Clause 18 of the Bill to the effect that the court should be given power to extend the length of the working week where necessary. He stated that like other members of the Opposition, he was not against shorter hours, but he wanted to see such a change accomplished logically and without the serious effect which a general application would cause. Mr W. J. Poison (Opposition, Stratford) also claimed that no one was opposed to the principle of a 40-hour week. Each industry, however, ought to be considered on its merits, and the length of the working week fixed accordingly. He knew many industries, including, particularly, the freezing industry, where a 40-hour week would certainly be impracticable. "The Government has struck at the employer in a great many ways," Mr I'olson said, "but here is a fresh principle which the Government aims to introduce but which is abhorrent to . British law. The Government wishes to lay it down that an employer is considered guilty until he is found innocent. It is left for the employer to prove that a shorter week is not practicable. I believe that the Nazis in Gertnany have embodied some such principle into their laws." " It's nastyism." interjected the Minister of Lands, Mr F. Langstone, when members were trying to tell Mr Poison the correct pronunciation of " Nazism." Mr Poison: The honourable member can speak for his side of the House, but I think,that it is about the nastiest bit of legislation I have seen brought liefore any Parliament. It is peculiar that the ideals of Nazism should pertain to the form of Government which this country * has at the moment. Here is the Prime Minister putting forward Nazi or " nasty " ideas —have it as you will —and asking us to put them into law. Mr W. P. Endean (Opposition, Parnell), describing the present situation as representing a, political and economic landslide, asserted that the British Government had laid it down that the 40-hour week could not be applied generally. The Commonwealth Government of Australia had taken the same line on the grounds that the shorter week would not allow Australia to compete with overseas countries having a longer week in their industries. The clause in the Bill violated the primary principles of our judicial system in putting the onus on the employer to prove the practicability or otherwise of the shorter week. There were protests from the Government benches when Mr W. A. Bodkin (Opposition, Central Otagft) claimed that the effect of the shorter week in the dairy industry would be to enslave women and children. Only through them, he asserted, would the fanner be •ible to make up his earnings. Mr Bodkin said that it would be impossible to meet the situation which would arise in industry generally by increased labour costs. That would not be compensated for by the reduced number of hours worked by skilled operatives. Mr H. S. S. Kyle (Opposition, Riccarton) quoted the recent action of the Christchurch Tramway Board in shortening its week to one of 44 hours at a cost, he said, of £23,000 annually to tjio .city. If similar action were taken over the entire transport system alone what would be the additional cost to the country? Mr Kyle said he had been informed that the price of butter would increase by one penny a pound because of the added costs in production due to the 40-hour week. •' The Prime Minister then moved that the question be put. The division on the motion resulted in 45 for and 15 against. The amendment wa,s lost by 44 votes to 15 and the clause was carried on the voices.