THE ARBITRATION ACT.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 15742, 6 February 1922, Page 7

THE ARBITRATION ACT.

ANIMATED DISCUSSION IN PARLIAMENT.

A LABOR STONEWALL

(Per Press Association.!

WELLINGTON, last night

Continuing the debate on the industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill, Mr Holland said the Bill might pass and it might bo placed on the Statute Book, but, if so, it could only be at the risk of industrial unrest, possibly an industrial upheaval. He criticised the policy of refusing to allow railwayman to vote on the election of a member of the Arbitration Court. The Court was to be- empowered to attack an award by ordering an increase or reduction in wages in accordance with variations in the cost of living. He urged that every effort should be devoted to Improving) the [standard erf living of workers. The history of the present Government had been one of antagonism to- Labor. Nothing, had been brought forward to justify the Bill, which was designed to take from industrial organisations rights and franchise they bad fought so bard to win.

Mr McCombs said the Bill was unnecessary and simply postponed the day when Arbitration Court- proceedings would get back to a normal state, free from the restrictions of the 1918 legislation, which were purely temporary to meet special conditions arising out of the war. Now it was proposed to make the Arbitration Court a dictator, with power to impose any wages rates it pleased. It was passible if, by a miracle, prices could be got back to the 1914 level, the. Judge could actually fix the workers’ wages twenty per cent, below those ruling in 1914. ‘

Mr Parry reviewed the growth of the arbitration system iti New Zolaand. He recognised that it was necessary to have some tribunal to bold the scale between employer and employee, and nothing should bo done to destroy the tribunal’s powers in this direction. Mr Veitch said the Arbitration Court bad, throughout its career, given sufficient satisfaction to warrant the continuance of the principles governing its operations. He thought the proposals in the Bill were undesirable, con ferring owers on the Court which were pernicious in manciple. The trade union leaders of the country were anxious to secure stable conditions, and to this end. desired that the principles governing the Arbitration Court should remain unchanged. Referring to the cost of living, Mr Witch contended that the fall was not sufficient to warrant any reduction in wages.

Mr Rartrnm condemned the attempt to disfranchise the railwnvmen in connection with the Arbitration Court.

Mr Ravage said the moment this Bid came into law and the public servants and other sections of the industrial community found that they could not get economic freedom tliev would get to"etlier in a solid body and fight for what tliev desired. This- economic freedom could he conferred by Parliament. Tf it were not conceded now, it must come, and would come after a struggle. Mr Parry moved an amendment that the Bill he referred hack to the committee for further consideration.

Mr Fraser, in seconding the amendment, said tlie genesis of the Bill was wrapped in mystery, but it was suggested that- clauses 10 and 11 had been framed to meet the desires of the Arbitration Court. Tliis lie condemned as likely tr undermine the foundations of justice. P was unthinkable that the Court should have a hand in framing the legislation under which it would exercise its functions. The Bill was not wanted bv nnv union, largo or small, and it seemed tha 4 the employers were not anxious for it. Why, therefore, and' at whose instigation, was it introduced?

Mr Jennings said that lie had beer impressed by the arguments advanced bv the Labor members in urging Ilia 4 ♦ lie P.ill be referred back, and would vote for the amendment. Mr S. Q. Smith agreed that the Bid should he referred back, as he believed that it contained provisions that would prove disastrous to (he country. Mr Edie suggested that it would bp a good policy for the Government to le 4 M ’e Bill bo referred back, ns the adon tion of that course would cut the ground from under the feet of those now attacking the measure.

Mr Howard, sneaking as a. memhe>' of the committee which considered the Bill urged that as members of that commit tee had not a" had an onportnnitv of hearin" the evidence- and considering it lie had pleaded to ha"" the Bill s”b mitted 4 o Mr Justice Sim and to Mr Haggard, the Conciliation Commissioner for their opinion, but- these s'mepcHons were not accented. He pointed o”t tha 4 the Conciliation Commissioner had' beer very successful in arranging the Settle merit of disputes. The Bill had not re ceived the consideration it de-served. Tf the men eol the idea that Parliament was not giving them a sntinre deal, ilic result would he unsatisfactory. Clause 10 would do awav with conciliation for eighteen months, si tire j) govo the Arbi '(ration Court power to amend awards as it thought fit without reference ti the Conciliation Councils. V hat was this hut disregard of agreements. After this, who could revive the old question: “Who said to hell with agreements?” I lie clause, was disowned by everyone. No one knew whence it emanated. It was nobodys baby. Mr' Yvilford said' he believed in arbitration, as it was an appeal to reason, which should, if possible, he made before a dispute reached an acute stage. He did not believe in tho present constitution of tho Arbitration Court as a permanent institution. A better system was the appointment of conciliation councils for tho various industries on which tho representatives of trades or callings concerned would sit. These men would be familiar with the technicalities of tho matters under review. No man on a permanent tribunal could become fully acquainted with tho details of every one of a variety of disputes that came before him.. Why was it proposed to take away the railwayman's rights to participate in tho selection of tho personnel of the Arbitration Court. He pointed out that, until a satisfactory settlement of tho cost of living question was reached, nothing permanent could he accomplished by the Arbitration Court. A Commission should be set up to investigate the cost of living and include all groups of cost. If the Minister in charge could not give an explanation of the various points raised, then, surely, lie would not object to tho Bill being referred back.

Mr Kcliett supported referring the Bill hack to the committee. Tho Bill, if passed, would result in the formation of One Big Union and the destruction ol the Arbitration Court, which would not he a good thing. There should only he one Parliament in New Zealand—the 4 one elected by the ]>eople of the country. After 9 o’clock on Saturday evening the House continued the debate on the motion to tnble the report of the Labor Bills Committee on the Industrial, Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill No. 2. Mr Horn considered the Bill should be referred back to the committee. He felt the opposition shown to the Bill indicated a want of confidence between the Government and the House. The speaker thought conciliation councils wore more effective in settling disputes than the Arbitration Court. The debate was carried on hv Messrs Veitch, Holland, Poland, Statham, and Bidey. Mr Sullivan was speaking at midnight,

when the Speaker left the chair until 2.39 on Monday. ALTERATION IN THE LAW. AMENDMENTS BY THE SELECT COMMITTEE. (Special to the Herald.) t WELLINGTON, this day. The Labor Bills Committee took evidence on the proposed to the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. It made fairly extensive changes in the original draft substituting a completely new clause to provide for the method under which the Arbitration Court may amend awards or industrial agreements with respect to rates of wages. Tliis clause declares that at any time and from time to time, while this section remains in force, the Arbitration Court shall have power, subject to conditions to be stated later, to amend in such manner as it thinks fit the provisions of awards or agreements so far as they relate to wages. In exercising tliis power the Court shall have regard to any increase or decrease in the cost of living since the half year ended Soptemper 30, 1920, and to the economic and financial condition affecting trade and industry in New Zealand and all other relevant considerations, and may, by general order, make such increase or reduction in wages as it thinks' fair, having regard to a fair standard of living. No such general oi’der shall ,come into force before May 1, 1922. SPECIAL CONDITIONS.

A sub-clause empowers the Court of its own motion, or on an application by any party to the award or agreement, to make such provisions as it considers just and equitable for any class of workers, if it is satisfied that by reason of tho special provisions of any awards or agreements, or of the economic conditions affecting any class of trade or industry, such class of worker should ho excluded from the operation of the general order. Applications under this section can only he made after the question has been properly submitted to the decision of the Industrial Union of Employers, or employees, and the Court in making the special conditions under this clause, shall not, states a proviso, reduce the rate of remuneration of workers to a lower wage than will, in the opinion of the Court, enable such workers to maintain a fair standard of living. The whole -of this clause comes into operation on April 1, 1922, until which date all existing enactments relating to bonuses remain in force. They are then repealed. The voting power of unions, in respect to the election of an Arbitration Court assessor, has been changed to one vote for every fifty members up to a total of five votes. Tho original Bill placed a limit of three on tho total votes exercised by one union.

Tho Bill retains a clnuse which excludes the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants from voting. It was originally provided in the Bill that local bodies should he excluded from the scope of awards or agreements, but the Labor Bills Committee has limited the operation of this provision to relief works.

A new clause, which detined the' qualifications of conciliation assessors, has been deleted, leaving the law unchangod.

TWELVE HOURS’ STONEWALL.

(From our Parliamentary Reporter.! WELLINGTON, this day.

The Wage Revision Amending Rill was obstructed by a whole day’s stonewall. lasting lor exactly 12 hours, including brief meal adjournments. Ohe section of the House talked about the suggested amendments to tho Arbitration Act, while the other half sat quietly listening, declining to join in the talk they regarded as obstruction. Sunday 'intervened to give relief at midnight, but there is much talk looming. Sufficient amendments were tabled by the Labor members when the. 'House met on Saturday morning to keep the committee proceedings going for, several days, assuming the movers . would h.'ive the physical capacity to keep up to their programme.

The first opportunity for lengthy talk came on the presentation of the Labor Bills Committee’s report containing amendments to the Bill. The official Laborites maintained a general discussion on this motion until 5 o’clook, being left in exclusive possession except for a supporting speech by Mr. Veitch, of Wanganui, who felt that the alterations in the law were too serious to be pushed through without further consideration. At this stagey Mr. Savage moved to refer the report back to the committee. The distress signal was answered.

There was a fresh development after dinner, when the Liberals and Independents commenced to support the amendments. Mr. Jennings, who was a Legislative Councillor when the original Arbitration Bill was passed, declared he could not ignore the distress signal which was being put up that tho Act was in danger. He had been deeply impressed with the objections to the Bill, especially by the earnest speech of tho member for Auckland West. He was going to vote to refer tho Bill back to the committee, as there bad been no explanation to the House of the amendments it had made. Mr. S. G. Smith (Taranaki), taking a similar line, said the proposals were so dangerous and the possibilities of industrial strife so serious as the result of its passage into law that the Government ought to reconsider the matter. Mr. Wilford, when the discussion had gone another half an hour, demanded to know why the chairman of committee or Minister of Labor had not explained tho new proposals in the measure. He had no means of knowing what was in the report which the House was asked to table, and he would not vote for it in the absence of this information. Mr. Massey: If the Minister explains he will be blocking his own Bill. l r ou can do nothing until you get it on the table. Mr. Wilford: Tho position of the man who votes for it is that ho does not know what he is voting upon. Mr. Holland, who led his forces back into a discussion of the amendment after supper, described the amended Bill ns loaded, because it contained all the elements of an industrial explosion. Nobody wanted to see strife, least of all tlio'so who had been through the hell of a strike, but so surely as certain causes produced certain effects this Bill made strikes inevitable. DISCUSSING A MYSTERY' The Premier said ho was obliged to call attention to the frequent references to a report which had not been laid on the fable. He quoted the Speaker’s ruling that it is out of order to refer to a report which had not been laid on tho table. Mr. Speaker ruled that when a chairman of committee presented a report the House was entitled to discuss it as well as members were able without having the details before them. It was one of the standing orders which should he altered so that when a report was brought down it should be tabled without debate. Its contents could then be used for discussion throughout the day. Members had been discussing a report which few had seen, and then, only by courtesy of tho chairman. This t report should * have been laid on tho table without discussion; then, as ho understood, if tho amended Bill was ready for circulation members would have an opportunity of seeing what they wished to discuss.

“We are asking for knowledge, but the Government refused to give it,” remarked Mr. Statham, who expressed fear that the House might he kept several days over this business. He could not understand the anxiety to rush through so important a measure. Members did not know whether they were not shaking the whole arbitration system to its foundations. The Government was prepared to spend days on Consideration of the meat pool and to receive numerous deputations about it, though in connection with a measure vitally affecting the workers’ interests the Government wished to rush it through without duo consideration. Bad times had arrived and apparently the first thing the Government wished to do was to make a raid on workers’ wages while it reduced taxation on the rich. Even at this late stage he urged the Minister to explain his Bill. Mr. Sidcy suggested that the Government should eliminate tho contentious matter from the Bill, as it was so obvious a very large section took strong objection to some of the proposals. It was a most inopportune time to raise strife and discontent.

Mr. Sullivan was having the last word of a long day when Mr. Speaker left the chair till Monday afternoon.