ARBITRATION ACT

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 108, 8 May 1936, Page 8

ARBITRATION ACT

THE AMENDING BILL—- ' SECOND READING DEBATE i . COMMITTEE STAGE REACHED J A DIVISION TAKEN j [ Per Press Association. I WELLINGTON, May 7. When the House met at L3O the secI ond reading debate on the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill was taken. Opposition members voiced protests at the measure, which, according to some, wis designed to protect the worker only. A division was taken at one stage and was defeated by 50 votes to 17. When the House rose the Bill nad re-ached the committee stages. 1 The debate was resumed by Mr 8. 1 G. Smith (Opp., New Plymouth) who ’ said he would support the reintroduc- ( tion of the compulsory clauses, but un- £ less a worker was protected more under ‘ the Bill be would be no ’jstter off, be- ’ cau-.se Vests would go up and some in- 1 dustries would be unable to stand the additional cost. The Hon. D. .G. Sullivan: We have already said we would do that, Mr Sind th said the cost of living was creeping up in many ways now. He considered that some employers had not played the game after t'.e compulsory clauses were repealed. but bad acted in a way detrimental to the interests of employees. He claimed that the last Government had net smashed * the Arbitration Act and killed the I Arbitration Court, and quoted a report , showing that 404 awards were registered under the Court last year. Air J. O’Brien (Gov., Westland i: At i low wages. | Mr Smith: No: not a.t low wages. He said he desired to see the conditions of the workers improved, but be . thought that in some ways the Bill was * going too far. Minister’s Viewpoint l‘be Hon. H. T. Armstrong (Minister j of 1/abour) said that it wa? the intention of the Government not only to see < that the working people were remunerated reasonably for the service they ■ rendered society, but the Government . would see that the workers were not unreasonably exploited regarding the , cost of living. Thousands of workers , were without awards to-day, but there ’ were thousands of otbeis who were I working under agreements who had the force or awards, and the conditions embodied in them were the only conditions the employers saw fit to agree to. because, if the employer did not agree to rhe conditions, he would refuse to have the agreements registered in the Court, Most of the agreements were agree- ’ ment-s that the workers wore economi- j tally forced to accept, because of slump conditions, on employers’ terms. There was nothing in the Bill . that gave rights to the working people that did not give equal rights to employers. If labour and | if the employers of labour had 1 made a request to the Government ■ i for preference to unionists for em- ! i ployers it would have been done. j Some leading employers had told > j him that there should be preference ■ i to unionists on both sides, and be | • was. inclined to agree, and if the ! employers made that request they would get it. He thought the request would be made before very I long. ’ Mr Arm*rtrong thought that most j people would agree that wages in New j Zealand were far 100 low. low wages meant low prices and unemployment, | and the Labour Party wanted to do | the best for all the people and every section of the community. Low wages spelt disaster to business generally. ! Mr W. J. Polson (Opp, Stratford): 'The fanner does not want, lew wages. | Mr Armstrong: Lam pleased to hear that. Mr. Armstrong said it was absorb to suggest that the Bill gave the union official a right to enter any poison’s home. It was a direct and wicked misrepresentation of the ealuse to say so. 1 He was receiving letters from women who were working under sweating roodiiions and from men empmyed by wealtbv firms at starvation wag -s. ’ They would have the right to approach the Arbitration Court. There was a reign of terror in New Zealand to-day. The workers were afraid to complain because they might lose thrr Jibs. 1 A division was taken on a motion ! I for committal, the voting being 50 in: I favour and 17 against.