I. C. AND A. ACT

Southland Times, Issue 21836, 13 October 1932, Page 6

I. C. AND A. ACT

REPEAL SOUGHT MR J. McCOMBS’ BILL MEASURE TALKED OUT (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) Wellington, October 12. Aiming at the repeal of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act of last session which introduced the principle of compulsory conciliation and voluntary arbitration and providing for the reinstitution of the principles of the main Act of 1925, the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill introduced by Mr J. McCombs (L., Lyttelton) in the House of Representatives this afternoon opened the floodgates of talk on a subject that has been very familiar in the past 12 months. Mr McCombs’ Bill also seeks to have all awards and agreements made under last session’s legislation declared null and void and of no effect. The Bill was talked out, but Mr McCombs declares he will introduce another one.

Introducing the Bill, Mr McCombs said that it proposed the repeal of legislation of last session. The wage reducing legislation before the second cut had proved to be disastrous to trade as was stated by wholesalers and retailers to the inter-party committee of the 1931 main session. In spite of that, hovzever, the Government had brought down further legislation and then introduced legislation to give the Employers’ Federation power to forcedown wages still further. The first wage reduction trebled the number of unemployed in the Dominion and when the last legislation was introduced the number of unemployed stood at 42,000. Now it was 76,000. That showed the effect of wage reducing legislation on trade and industry. The industrial conciliation and arbitration legislation of last session took away from the workers of the Dominion the right of appeal in a dispute to an impartial tribunal what was the result? Industrial chaos had arisen everywhere and disputes had not been settled. The position was now under so-called compulsory conciliation and there was none. In many cases it was that the emnloyers were able to dictate terms to the‘ workers. The Employers’ Federation with Mr T. O. Bishop at its head was forcing employers to take advantage of last session’s legislation. Legislation had reduced the system to a farce. Its author, the late Hon. W. Pcmber Reeves, had recognized that compulsory arbitration was essential. He had recognized that 40 years ago and yet the Prime Minister had thrown us back 60 years as far as industry was concerned. Mr Reeves’ summing up had been amply proved in a few months since the legislation was passed. Mr McCombs was going on to read a newspaper extract from the London correspondent of a Christchurch newspaper, but had to submit the extract to Mr Speaker, who was able to rule whether it reflected on the Government at all, Mr McCombs filled in the gap by outlining the objects of his Bill and then read the following extract: “That the death of the late Hon. W. Pember Reeves, author of the New Zealand Arbitration Act, was hastened by worry over the recent alterations in the system,” is indicated in advice from a London correspondent. Mrs Reeves believes, states the correspondent, that the pulling to pieces of his Arbitration Act helped to weaken him. It was a great trouble to him. He was too ill to do anything and felt it deeply. Mr McCombs said he hoped that Mr Reeves’ fellow Liberals were not proud of the legislation. Mr R. McKeen (L., Wellington South) supported Mr McCombs and was followed by the Prime Minister, who said that if Mr Reeves had been in New Zealand carrying on the government of the country as he was last session, he would have done as the Government did. Labour members: Never. The Prime Minister continued that Labour’s argument that because a thing was done 40 years it should be done still was no argument at all. Since the passing of the original Act. (here had been great changes in industry. Greater consideration was shown by the employers to-day than had ever been shown in the history of the country before. Forty years ago conditions in industry were not comparable with those of to-day and the necessity for legislation of those days did not exist now. The late Mr Reeves was a man of liberal mind and he would have seen the necessity of enacting last session’s legislation. The reduction in national income had been responsible for the serious position of the country. Reductions had to be made in wages because of this smaller national income. It was impossible for the employers to pay the same rate of wages as in good times

Mr McCombs had raised an impossible argument when he said that reductions in wages were responsible for the increase in unemployment. It was so obvious a misrepresentation that it would not pass anywhere. The amending legislation gave an employer greater freedom to employ more. Labour members followed and just before 5.30 the Minister of Labour rose and replied to Mr McCombs.

He said that it had been argued that the amendment to the act would stand in the way of agreements being reached, but a number of agreements had already been arrived at and it appeared likely that many of those still in dispute would yet be agreed upon. Out of 50 disputes that had been heard, agreements had been reached in 23 cases. He talked out the introduction of the Bill, still being on his feet at the 5.30 adjournment.