LATE SITTING

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 87, Issue 202, 27 August 1943, Page 3

LATE SITTING

PARLIAMENT CARRIES ON TILL MORNING INDUSTRIAL LEGISLATION CONSIDERED Wellington, Aug. 26. The War Pensions Bill, the second reading debate on which had lasted in the House of Represent': lives most of last evening, was read a second time shortly after midnight and the House proceeded to take the second reading of the War Pensions and Allowances (Mercantile Marine) Amendment Bill, which the Prime Minister explained would bring those pensions and allowances into line with increases provided in the previous Bill. Mr. Fraser paid a tribute to the men of the mercantile marine, who so wdllingly and cheerfully risked th*eir lives.

The Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Holland, endorsing the Prime Minister’s references to the mercantile marine, said that but for them the soldiers could not be taken to war. nor could the Dominion’s produce be exported. They had carried on without complaint and the Opposition welcomed an opportunity of putting into practical form the provisions of the Bill for those seamen who suffered as a result of the war. The Bill was read a second time and together with the War Pensions Bill and the Workers’ Compensation Amendment Bill was put through the committee stages and passed. Two private measures, the Otaki and Porirua Trusts Bill, which incorporates. a new board to hold property now held by the Porirua College Trust Board and varies trusts upon which that property is held, and the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Bill, which has a similar objective, were also put through all stages and passed, as was the Native Purposes Bill. These measures were disposed of by 2.5 a.m. Industrial Prpostils. Moving the second reading of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, the Minister of Labour, Mr. Webb, said that 35 years ago he had been victimised simply because he had been doing his best for the protection of his mates. In those days, he said, employers were fierce. The original Act passed 40 years ago provided for a penalty against an employer who dismissed a worker merely because he was an official of a union, had acted as an assessor on the Conciliation Council, or because he was entitled to benefit under an award, but if any other reason were given by the employer for a worker's dismissal, no matter how trivial, no action could be taken under this section. The present Bill piaced an onus on an employer of satisfying the court that, ho dismisses an employee for other reasons, and it was in line w'th Australian legislation that had existed for many years. It was difficult for a worker to prove that he was dismissed for his association with union activities, but under the Bill an employer had to satisfy he court on Ihe matter. Dealing with the recovery of monies due to workers under awards and industrial agreements, Mr. Webb said the clause in the Bill had been drawn on the lines of the Queensland and New South Wales laws. Without affecting the existing civil remedies, proceedings for the recovery of arrears of wages could be commenced in the Magistrate's Court or Arbiration Court, in the same manner as lor a penalty .for a breach c.f award. Any appeal from a magistrate’s decision would go to the Court of Arbitration and the decision would be final. The Leader of the Opposition said that no Bill had been introduced for many years that aimed a more, direct blow at the system oi British justice than th< present measure. It removed the right of appeal from one court to another. Mr. Holland drew attention to the late hours at which the measure was being brought down for consideration, stating that the methods being employed by the Government were something in line with the justice contained in the Bill. lie challenged the Government that it dare not. bring down this legislation at a time when the public could listen to the debate. Evidence clearly showed that the unions were demanding this legislation because they were dissatisfied with British justice that had stood the lest over t.ne years. There was widespread concern over the Bill, which proposed lo take away from one party lo a dispute the right of appeal. A case could be started in the Arbitration Court, from Iho decision of which there was no appeal. Th-e Bill would also retain for the workers two lines of action, but would give the employer only one. It was unadulterated trades union domination. Speaking of recent harbour board cases, Mr. Holland said that Mr. Gilmour, the industrial magistrate, had found no breach had. been committed, but a judge of the Arbitration Court found there was a breach and harbour boards had been lined. It was a remarkable thing that, unions with £35,000 or more involved had not asked the Arbitration Court to state a case for the Appeal Court. They knew their case was bad. The harbour boards did not wish to pay out until they were sure th-e judgment was correct and until the workers had exhausted their legal rights.. Harbour board members had been intimidated by lawyers acting on behalf of unions and they had been told that if the boards did not pay up, them the a 4 -ntion of the Auditor General would be drawn to the fafet that they were committing a breach of award and that they might have to pay the tines themselves. The Minister of Su-pply, Mr. Sullivan, said the Bill only gave an expression to what almost amounted to recommendations from some of the Dominion’s judges. The legislation was not new. as it had been in operation for 25 years in one of the Australian States. “Judge of Own Awards.” Mr. Polson said the Bill made the Arbitration Court judge of its own awards and if there wcie weakness in awards the court could deliver a judgment patching it up. It the Bill went through it would enable unions to institute claims to collect enormous sums of money and by this means the Government sought to achieve a result that even Australia had never attempted. The Attorney-General, Mr. Mason, said there might be an impression that a appeal was a normal procedure but that was not so. An appeal was not an inherent right, but was always a special creation of statute and there was no need to get excited about the right of appeal. Miss Howard said she thought the Arbitration Court should deal with all industrial matters. A lot had been heard about trades hall domination, but it was very patent that the men ure the Opposition was dancing to was domination by the Employers’ Association. Mr. Harker contended that the Bill was another attack by the Government on some of the cardinal principles of justice. The Government v.as placing expediency before principle and party before the welfare of the country. The Minister of Works, Mr. Semple, said there was nothing to prevent an employer sacking a loafer if the Bill were oassed. He had personally sack-