I.C. AND A. ACT

Southland Times, Issue 21650, 11 March 1932, Page 7

I.C. AND A. ACT

DEBATE RESUMED

STRONG OPPOSITION TO MEASURE THE BILL EXPLAINED (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) Wellington, March 10. Further consideration of the I. C. and A. Amendment Bill was commenced in the House of Representatives this afternoon when the Minister of Labour, the Hon. A. Hamilton, moved the second reading. There is still a fair amount‘of evidence of opposition in the House to the Bill, apart from the Labour Party, and an indication of what the Government may have to face was given during the course of the Minister’s speech when the member for Parnell (Mr W. P. Endean) made several interjections. He was inclined to think that the Labour Party failed to appreciate the necessity for help for industry, Mr Hamilton began. Hie present conditions were unprecedented in the history of New Zealand and the laws of the land would have to be amended to meet the changed conditions. The unfortunate state of affairs had been brought about partly by conditions overseas and partly by local restrictions, and while the Government could not change matters outside the country they could adjust the harassing restrictions within the main Arbitration Act. The Act had been severely criticized for many years, both by labour and employers, and it had to be admitted (hat it operated against both classes at times. The subject matter of the Bill first came up at the Industrial- Conference in 1928 and was referred to in the House by the Minister of Finance in 1931 and by the Prime Minister during the election campaign. It was one of the definite planks of the Coalition party’s programme. ,Quoting from the remarks of Mr Justice Stringer, Mr Hamilton said that the judge had been of the opinion that amendments to the Act were needed. Mr W. P. Endean (Govt., Parnell) : He doesn’t agree with your amendments. Mr Hamilton: He said that amendments were needed. Mr Endean: But not yours. The Arbitration Act had had a long and useful life, Mr Hamilton continued. It had conic into being in 1894 after a long period of very low prices and had been amended from time to time. The social problems to-day were different. because since the Act was first passed, New Zealand had enjoyed a long period of rising and high prices and he was of the opinion that this was one of the factors that had allowed the Act to last as long as it had. Apart from the present, depression altogether, serious amendments were needed. It could not bo said that, there was any sweating in industry to-day. The Leader of the Opposition: I’ll say that. I'll say it does.

Mr Hamilton: There may be men working for low wages but our main problem is those who have no job. Mr F. Langstone (L., Waimarino) : How will this amendment give them work? Mr Hamilton: We believe it. will. To-day public opinion and organized labour is a fairly good safeguard for all classes. Continuing, he said the national income had come down and exporting classes were 23 per cent, below thh 1914 standard. Sacrifices had to be made and they should be made on an equal basis. Mr Semple (L., Wellington East) : There are thousands of workers 100 per cent, below. Lavrs Need Straightening. “That is so,'' Mr Hamilton said, “but the I.C. and A. Act is preventing the industries of the country from operating. The labour laws are very complicated and need straightening out-.’’ Mr J. A. Lee (L., Grey Lynn) : You will straighten them out on their backs. Articles to the value of £9,000,000 were imported to New Zealand when they should be manufactured here, Mr Hamilton said. Primary industry had not been under the Arbitration Act and- had expanded, but industries under the Act had gone back. Compulsory conciliation in the Bill meant practically the same thing as conciliation meant in the Act and to use the word arbitration in the correct sense it had to be voluntary because it meant that two people who disagreed agreed to let a third party settle their differences. A Labour member: Do you take your law from the dictionary? Continuing, Mr Hamilton explained the Bill as previously and said the Bill would not- abolish the Court, it would put the onus on the workers and employers to come to an agreement and if they did not do so, they would, have to take the consequences. “I am quite convinced the employers want the award,” he said. The Leader of the Opposition: Will not this Bill allow any employer to stop an award being made? Mr Hamilton: No. If five out of the seven agree to go to Court, the dispute will go there so one employer cannot stop an award. Mr Holland: If there are less than four assessors, they must all agree, therefore one employer can stop an award. In conclusion, Mr Hamilton replied briefly to some criticism levelled at the Bill during its introductory stages. The Bill, if passed, would leave the administration of the Act at the mercy of unscrupulous employers who would be able to prevent any case in which they were interested from going to the Arbitration Court, Mr R. McKeen (L., Wellington South) declared. Even if the case were allowed to go to the Court and an award were made, the employers would still have a “come-back.” because they would induce the Minister to have an Order in Council issued exempting them from the provisions of the award. Nothing could generate class war and the feeling of town versus country more than the Bill before the House, Mr H. G. R. Mason (L., Auckland Suburbs) said. He had more respect for the intelligence of the farmers of the Dominion 'than to think they had any respect for the arguments advanced by the Minister. The provision in the Bill giving the Minister power by Order in Council to exclude any specified industries or persons from the operation of the principal act was a pernicious one. Mr W. J. Bolson (1., Stratford) said it was necessary at the present time to strike the shackles from industry, and farmers would welcome the measure as much as industrialists Farmers had been harrassed by attempts to place their industry under court awards. It would be disastrous to the farming industry in New Zealand if it were subject to court awards. After the tea adjournment, Mr R. Semple (L., Wellington East), vigorously belaboured the Government for attempting to put. the Bill on the Statute Book. It would lead to industrial strife and white slavery, he said.

Mr H. G. Dickie (Govt., Patea), referred to the award restrictions in the freezing industry, and said they led to loss of money to the worker, farmers and shareholders. Labour members had been accused of making threats, Mr Lee said, but they had not done so. They had simply stated the facts. The Bill was framed to enslave thousands of women in the Dominion. Mr S. G. Smith (Govt., New Plymouth) claimed that a great bulk of the workers in New Zealand did not come under the Arbitration Act. Mr Parry: It cannot be very dangerous, then why alter it ? Mr Smith added that he had been approached to remove the restrictions when he was Minister of Labour, After Mr F. Jones (L., Dunedin South), and Mr J. Munro (L., Dunedin North), had spoken, Mr J. Connelly (Govt., Mid-Canter-bury) rose and said he would not vole to make a shell of the Arbitration Court. He agreed that the Act could stand amending,

but the Bill would abolish the Court and therefore he would not vote for it in its present form. The debate was continued by Mr W. J. Jordan and Mr J. O’Brien until the House rose at 11.50. PETITION DECLINED LABOUR VIEWS ON BILL. (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) Wellington, March 10. An opportunity to be heard at the bar of the House of Representatives on the proposals to reduce .wages and the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill was asked for by Mr Jamas Roberts and 14 others in a petition which was presented to the House to-day by the Leader of the Opposition. Petitioners claimed that they represented the whole of the industrial workers of New Zealand, and said that they viewed with alarm the proposed legislation of the Government as embodied in the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill. Petitioners requested that as the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill was not to be referred to a committee of the House, thereby preventing representation being made in the ordinary way, opportunity should be afforded for representations to be submitted before the bar of the House. It was stated that the Bill would deal a fatal blow at the whole arbitration system. Mr Holland asked the Prime Minister whether he would give an opportunity for the House to discuss the motion relating to the prayer of the petition. Mr Forbes said he did not think any good purpose could be served in this way. Both he and the Hon. A, Hamilton had met representatives of the employers and workers on Tuesday and Wednesday and a full opportunity had been afforded for placing suggestions before the Government. Mr W. E. Party: What'about the members of the House? Mr Forbes: There are 24 members of the Labour Party and w’e will have an opportunity to hear them voicing those opinions in the House.

Continuing, Mr Forbes said that what was wanted was information. There was no advantage to be gained simply by calling witnesses from the North Cape to'Bluff. Ample time would be’ allowed during the second reading for all views to be placed before the House.