ARBITRATION BILL

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20496, 15 March 1932, Page 13

ARBITRATION BILL

SECOND READING DEBATE. A LABOUR AMENDMENT. (PRESH ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.) WELLINGTON, March 14. Tho debate on the second reading of tho Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill was continued in the House of Representatives this evening. Mr H. E. Holland, Leader o,f tho Opposition, aaid lie had noted that when several members of the Government Party had risen to support the Bill they had had in their hands a statement of the Employers' Federation, of which he also had a copy. Ha had to note in nearly every case that the arguments had been identical with the matter contained in the Employers' Federation statement, and this fact seemed to tie significant. Members of the Government Party had stated that wages must come down. It must be remembered that there had already been a ten per cent, reduction, and, in addition, many men were working only two or three days a week. He would like to know what the Government considered was the irreducible minimum and whether it would constitute a decent standard of living. There could bo no argument that this country could not afford to maintain a decent standard of living. Mr Holland went on to say that both employers and Labour had, at various times, favoured the abolition or retention of the Arbitration Court. For instance, on a rising market, the stronger unions favoured the abolition of tlie Court to enable them to bargain for better wages and conditions, while, the employers favoured tho retention of the Court. On the other hand, on a falling market, the workers, particularly tho weaker unions, favoured the retention of the Court, whilo the employers desired its abolition so that they could impose their own conditions. Ho pointed out that it had always beon recognised that if tho Dominion was to have arbitration it must bo on ii compulsory basis, otherwise it could not be effective.

Mr Holland contended that tho Bill, if passed, would bo followed by a lengthening ol' hours and a reduction of wages, and unemployment would increase) in consequence. It had been contended that the unemployment difficulty had been intensified by the arbitration system, but conditions in countries where tliero wero no arbitration laws demonstrated that this was not the case. Concluding, Mr Holland said members of the Government were not supporting the Bill of their own volition, but .were doing so at tlie instigation of the Employers' Federation. Tliero were, in addition to workers, many businessmen, working farmers, and professional men throughout the country who would be sorry to see the measure l;ecome lnw.

Minister's Speech. The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coutes said Mr Holland had referred to the etatcmont of the Employers' Federation. Ho lor one had seen no such statement. Mr H. T. Armstrong (Lab., Christchurch East); It. was posted to every member of the House. Mr Coates declared that tho Bill was not being put through on behalf of tho Employers' Federation. There were two classes of the community who were Buffering particularly at the present time. One class was constituted by the unemployed, and their position was the worst. Mr J. A. Leo (Lab.. Grey Lynn): And you are doing nothing for them. Mr Coates: That is incorrect. Much has been done for them, and more will bo done. It is all governed bv the amount of money at our disposal. Continuing, Mr Coates said that the other class which was_ suffering «is a result of the economic position was constituted by the farmers, and until their finances were restored, it was impossible for a recovery to bo effected; in other directions it must be realised that the country was up against it. The prices of all products, except gold, had fallen. It, had been recojrnised by experts that it would take at least two years for the Arbitration Court to ieview the position of all industries m the light of the altered economic conditions, and it was thought tlmt * quick method of reaching a readjustment was to enable the parties themselves to get together and arrive at a satisfactory agreement. Tt had been said. Mr Coates continued. that employers were out to force down conditions. He pointed out that conciliation proceedings would be open to the Press, and public opinion would afford protection for the workers. He also considered the statement that the ba;l employer would predominate would prove to be a fallacy, but if this position did arise, it would "ot take tn Government lone: to provide a remedy. No man in this countrv was Romg to stand for rnwholesowo conditions. "Bleeding the Body Politic." Mr F. Langstone (Lab.. Waimanno) compared the Government's policy wi li the old surgical process of Weeding, arguing that because of its lack or knowledge of appropriate re"™!" s *- Government was simply ldeeiliiig; tody politic and weakening the patient in the process. An Amonimsnt. The debate was continued by Mi'K. J. Howard (Lab., Christchurch South), Mr A. Stuart (C., Kangitikei), and Mr J. McCombs (Lab., Lyttelton). The following amendment wag moved by Mr McCombs: — Whereas the original legislation ! embodying the principle or legal settlement of industrial disputes took three and a half years to put on tlie Statute Book; whereas the originator of the Act, Mr W. P. Beeves, in-, sisted that legislation would be worse than useless unless it provided for finality in the settlement of disputes; whereas the experience of the past thirty-seven years has proved the soundness of the oiiginator's central idea; whereas the Prime Ministei during the recent General Election period gave a definite assurance that it was not the intention of the Government to destroy the Arbitration Act; whereas the proposed legislalation will, in fact, destroy the very foundation of the arbitration system by destroying compulsory arbitration; whereas the interests of the whole community, including employers and employoes, can best b6 safeguarded and maintained by the legal establishment of some tribunal to give the final decision in tho event of a disagreement between the parties, that tho Bill be referred back to the Government with a recommendation that it be re-draftcd in order to preserve the essential features of the New Zealand arbitration law, namely, the settlement of industrial disputes by compulsory arbitration where, in a small percentage .of industrial disputes, a settlement is not arrived at by agreement or conciliation. Mr P. Frascr (Lab., Wellington Central) seconded the amendment. The debate was interrupted when the House rose at midnight. Replying to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Forbes said the debate would be continued to-morrow.