“ REFER IT BACK.”

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 373, 15 March 1932, Page 4

“ REFER IT BACK.”

Labour Fights Arbitration Bill. SPEECHES IN THE HOUSE. (Special to the “Star.") WELLINGTON, March 15. The Arbitration Act Amendment Bill was debated for the third time in the House of Representatives last night, when the second reading stage was resumed. A Labour amendment moved was that the Bill be referred back to the Government with a recommendation that it be redrafted in order to preserve the essential features of the New Zealand arbitration law, namely settlement of industrial disputes by compulsory arbitration, where in a small percentage of industrial disputes settlement is not arrived at by agreement or conciliation.

Mr Holland, Leader of the Opposition, was the opening speaker. He traced the history of the Arbitration Act, stating that its adoption was wholly favoured by trade unionists. Having failed to prevent the passage of the Bill the employers, he said, endeavoured to get control of the Court machinery, and during the Waihi and Huntly mining disputes they organised bogus unions. It was a peculiar development that the farming class, which now demanded the abolition of the arbitration system came in hundreds to Wellington in an attempt to force the watersiders to adopt arbitration during the 1913 water side strike. Now this class believed it could impose worse conditions on the workers of it could abolish the Arbitration Court. The policy of the present Bill was to lengthen hours of labour, though machinery was displacing large numbers of men. The only way to cope with unemployment was to shorten hours. If the Government contention was correct, that the arbitration system reduced employment, what could be said of America, with no arbitration but nine millions unemployed. Pie intended, when the Bill was in committee, to deal with the clauses in detail. Finally he expressed the belief that a large number of working farmers strongly opposed the Bill, as they believed it would be ultimately prejudicial to them. He appealed to all sections of the House to join him in endeavouring to destroy the Bill. Quick Adjustment Necessary.

The Right Hon J. G. Coates, Minister of Public Works, expressed the opinion that the Bill would provide for industry and employment a measure of assistance that it would take the Arbitration Court two years to bring. He said that the unemployed were the worst-off section in the community. Wages and conditions had quickly to be readjusted to the altered situation created by 'the tremendous fall in the national income from one hundred and fifty millions in 1929 to an estimated income of ninety millions for 1932-33. If arrangements could be made between employer and employee, with full recognition of the capacity of the industry, it was possible that wages might be greater if increased results were obtained.

Mr Nash (Labour, Hutt): There is no need for the Bill if that is the case. The statement that the Bill was an attempt to destroy the Arbitration Act was described by Mr Coates as an exaggeration. “The Court,” he said, “still exists.” (Labour laughter). Mr Coates said it had to be remembered that to-day conditions were different from the “bad old days.” Mr Fraser (Labour, Wellington Central): You are driving us back to the bad old days.

Mr Coates: That is not so. The Government believes it essential to face the facts as we find them, and the sooner we do it the better. There need be no alarm that this Bill aims a blow at the worker, because it does nothing of the sort. Mr Howard (Labour, Christchurch South) stated that the Government had discouraged New Zealand industries by its attitude in refusing to agree to reasonable conditions, two instances being rubber manufacturing which could have been started in Christchurch, and paper making on the West Coast. It was unsporting to alter rules in the middle of the game, when the Arbitration Court was operating to protect ‘the worker.

Mr Stewart (Coalition, Raglan) stated that he had not entered Parliament to reduce wages, but the community had to be treated fairly. It was useless spending millions on education if the Arbitration Act enabled the worst man to get as much as the best. Labour Amendment Moved.

Mr M’Combs (Labour, Lyttelton) declared that if the previous speaker voted for the Bill he would definitely drag down living standards for tens of thousands. The Arbitration Act was introduced to meet exactly the same circumstances as those of to-day. The country was proud of the Liberal Party which passed that law, but anything but proud of the miserable remnant of the Liberal Party which had been led captive into the camp of the traditional enemies of Liberalism. Finally Mr M’Combs moved an amendment that the Bill be referred back to the Government with a recommendation that it be redrafted in order to preserve the essential features of the New Zealand arbitration law namely settlement of industrial disputes by compulsory arbitration, where in a small percentage of industrial disputes settlement is not arrived at by agreement or conciliation.

Mr Fraser (Labour, Wellington Central) was speaking when the House adjourned at midnight.