ARBITRATION BILL

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20494, 12 March 1932, Page 16

ARBITRATION BILL

SECOND READING DEBATE. DIVERGENT VIEWS. (PBESS ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.) WELLINGTON, March li. The debate on i" e second reading of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill was resumed in the House of Representatives to-day by Mr A. S. Richards (Lab., Iloskill), who said tho Bill was a direct attack on th workers. It was not wanted by the public, and he did not believe ail the members of the Government I'arty favoured it. _ ;Ur H. fc>. 8. Kyle (C., liiecartou; said tlio Arbitration system was now being tried out lor the first time m ■ its history. The Bill would be a big improvement on the present system. Mr D. G. Sullivan (Lab., Avon) referred to the suggestion that tho Labour members were adopting a threatening attitude regarding the Bill. Ho said that if the legislation was to bo used to impose humiliation, hardship and exploitation on tho workers, and if the workers resisted, tliev would bo supported by the members of the Labout Party. Price Disparity. The Hon. E. A. llansom said he did •not think that employers would endanger their industries by trying to impose unjust conditions. The workers would still have the protection of publie opinion. There won id. bo no incentive to break off conciliation proceedings when it was realised tho ease was not necessarily to be -referred to the Court. There would, on the contrary, be the strongest possible incentive to reach an agreement. He considered that New Zealand was well, past the worst stage of the depression and that she was on the upward grade. There were, however; restrictions in industry that'would have to be removed. The disparity between tho prices of raw material and manufactured articles required investigation, and it was not only wages that would require attention. The problem was one for the Minister for . Industries and Commerco as well as the Minister for Labour. Mr I>. "W. Coleman (Lab.. Gisborne) declared that a large body of employers did not favour tho Bill, because they realised it would bo" followed by strife. Ho believed that the introduction ot piece-work would result in sweated conditions. Abolition of Preference. Mr W I'. Kndean (C., Parnell) expressed himself m favour of the abolition of preference to unionists, whtcn he believed would smarten up mH. Chapman (Lab., Wellington North) said it was difficult to understand in what way industries were nnnot think there were any grounds for the nervousness of Opposition members concerning the effect the measure might have on employees. Ho promised t.hdt if it operated as dreadfully as they feared it would the Government would immediately introduce drastic remedial legislation. "Heading for Strife," Mr W. Nash (Lab., -Hutt) said the Bill would throw everybody so far as the standard of living was concerned. He was afraid they were heading for a period of strife, and he did not want to see that. . Mr A. D. McLcod (Ind. C., Wairarapa) said tho anxiety of the Labour Party seemed to be entirely for thoso in work and not for the unemployed. Uiiloss there was an all«round . loosening up of Arbitration: Court conditions there would be more and wore out of W. E. Barnard (Lab,, Napier) said the worker had not shared in the prosperity when wool prices were high, and now when prices were lowno was asTcc'd to bear the brunt of it. Measure Opposed. The second Coalition supporter to express opposition to the Bill was Mr A. J. Stallworthy (C., Eden), who said that whatever happened he hoped the Government would continue the protection of women and juvenile employees. He had on first studying tho Bill come to the conclusion that it was a futile, clumsy, self-contradictory, and reactionary measure, and that as it stood it would destroy one of the best Liberal epoch-making laws placed on the Statute Book. It would destroy the main principle' of tho Arbitration system and place industrial life in the hands" of Communist agitators on the one'"side;' and of unscrupulous employers on the other side. He agreed that the great body of employees were men of integrity and humanity, but it requirod only one unscrupulous employer in a hundred to bring down the standard. This aspect caused him grave concern. ' He had listened to tho Minister's case for the Bill with an open, mind,- but he had not been convinced. He,had told tho electors that he would support' the compulsory arbitration system, and that was where he stood to-day. He had consulted leading lawyers, who had confirmed his view that the Bill would destroy the Arbitration Act. There was an appeal to-day for stabilisation in all directions, but. the Bill would throw overboard the principle of stabilisation in the most important - sphere of all, gamely, industry. He hoped the Primo Minister would accept important amendments to the Bill. ■^ r Black (Ind,,. Motueka) expressed his opposition to the clause giving.-Cabinet power to exclude certain industries from tho operation of awards, contending that this power should bo vested in Parliament. The debate was adjourned and the House rose at 11.55 p.m. till 7.30 p.m. on Monday. LABOUR'S ATTITUDE. STATEMENT BY LEADER. [Feom Our Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, March 11. Suggestions heie to-day that the Labour Party had relaxed its determination to fight tho Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill, and to confine its discussions to' short speeches and moving amendments, w.)n denied by Mr ti. E. Holland, this afternoon. "There is no truth in the statement,' he said. "The Labour Party is determined to fight this Bill to the last ditch." ■ . Seven or eight Government members are opposed to the passage of the Bill in its present form, and some of them have expressed their intention to vote against it, not necessarily in its entirety, but against certain of its provisions. Others, believing that the meagure goes too far, are prepared to await the committee stage and support amendments which would clarify the position of the Court and achieve the purpose they seek, namely the removal of certain restrictions from industry. The clause which gives the Government power !to exempt industries by Order-in-Council, is not likely to survive the test of Ihe House. Recognising this, the Government's possible course will lie to accept amendments to it or abolish it. Another clause which will probably undergo amendment is that whirls defines the terms upon which a dispute is referred to sfae Court*