REVIEW BY CABINET

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 81, 2 October 1931, Page 7

REVIEW BY CABINET

SUSPENSION OF AWARDS ?

UNIONISTS ALAKMED

Humours that tho Government proposes to suspend tho operation of awards under tho Arbitration Court have caused such concern in the Labour movement that a deputation organised by the Trades and Labour Councils' Federation waited on the two leaders of tho Government—the Eight Hon. G. \V. Forbes and the Bight Hon. J. G. Coatcs— yesterday to ask what truth there is in them. Mr. Forbes said that Cabinet was considering the question of awards, but so far had not arrived at a decision

' Mr. E. Kennedy referred to newspapers' statements that the Government intended to suspend awards, and said that those statements had produced a good deal of perturbation throughout the Dominion. So far as ho know this was the first time since the inception of the arbitration system that such a proposal had been put forward. They wished to know whether the Government intended to interfere with awards and suspend them altogether.

Mr. F. Cornwoll said they knew that representations had been made for some alteration to the present Arbitration Court system, aud they were concerned to know what the Government proposed. He suggested that if it was considered necessary to make any change, the Labour viewpoint should be consulted. Cabinet would gain considerably by that, and he urged that a conference should be called for the purpose. Tho newspapers had been flying kites lately, and tho deputation wanted to cut tho string and let them go. That was why they had come along to the Ministers. The arbitration system had worked very satisfactorily as between the workers and the employers. Thore had been less trouble in New Zealand than in any other country where the system had been adopted. If any alteration to awards fixed for certain periods was proposed, the Labour movement was entitled to know about it. They realised that the position of the country •was serious, but they suggested that the Government should reconsider the wisdom of tho authority given to ( .the Court to reduce wages. A 1 mistake was made by the Court in making tho 10 per cent. cut. The cut had not helpod things, but had made conditions worse, and employers expressed regret that the cut had been put into operation.

WHY THE CHANGE?

Mr. A. W. Croskery said that since the Arbitration Act was instituted by tho Hon. Pember Beeves New Zealand had beea very free from industrial strife, and probably had been more free from such troubles than any other country. This was largely duo to the system of adjustment of industrial disputes. New Zealand was not tho only country which was suffering from depression and the aftermath of the war. No other country, so far as he •was aware, had suspended the operation of its arbitration system. Agreements might have been revised in Great •Britain and Australia, but they had jiot been suspended. If it was proposod to suspend awards, the deputation wished to know what was the idea behind the change. Was it that tho total .suspension of the Act would create more employment? If so, he submitted that unemployment could be ovoreomo without the abolition of the Act. If that was not the aim, there could be only one other object—to throw the working people entirely into thr hands of the employers. All employers were not bad; there were thpusands of decent, fairminded employers in New Zealand who believed in an equitable and fair standard of living, but there were also unscrupulous employers, and the Arbitration Court was the only medium through -which .their employees could reccivo re.dress/ ■■

■ Mr. Crockery suggested as a means of unemployment relief that overtime should be totally abolished. Another remedy was to shorten tho working week and enable more workers to be placed in industry. He pointed out that thousands of workers had committed themselves under the Advances to Workers legislation, in the belief that the Arbitration Act afforded them security, and if the Act were abolished thousands of homes would fall back into the hands of-the Government. In conclusion, ho suid that over 90 per cent, of the unions did not desire the abolition of the Act.

UNDER CONSIDERATION.

The Prime Minister (the Eight Hon. G. W. Forbes) said no official statement had been made of tho Government's intentions. Newspaper reporters had gathered their own impressions. As far as the Court was concerned, the matter was under consideration by tho Government, and no decision had been arrived at. Thoy were discussing tho question as to what was the best thing to do in the circumstances. Undoubtedly the Act had stood for a good many years «nd had worked satisfactorily. At times the system had been denounced by the workers, and at times by the employers; it haa never had the united blessings or both sides.

th^t^.» IthaßbythemajOl^ 0f

Mr. Forbes ( went on to say that the Pominion was passing through unprecedented tunes, and no rules laid down m the past could apply to tho present conditions. New Zealand had nevor beon within coo-ec of its present position, thousands of boys were leaving school and finding themselves unablo to pain employment. When a problem liko that arose, the question of restrictions by awards had to be very closely scrutinised with a view to seeing if they were not hampering employment. That was the position at present.

NEED FOR THE CUT. "In regard to the 10 per cent, cut," Mr. Forbes continued, "I don't"think there are two opinions about it. I think the workers recognise Hint it was necessary and that it had to be. done. Yet you come along and say it should be restored.

A voice: "What good has it done?" Mr. Forbes referred to tho decline of the country's income by many millions, and said that the members of the deputation, as reasonable and sensible men, must conclude that wages and other costs had to bo cut down.

"What good has it done?" the interjeetor persisted.

"There is no doubt that costs sto coming down all round," said the Prime Minister, "The cost of living is coming down, though I know you will dispute it. I know there is no common ground for us to discuss that." The Government Statistician's figures showed that the cost of living was falling. If the figures showed that tho cost of living had risen 10 per cent. Labour deputations came along and argued that the- Government should increase wagee. Any amendment of the Arbitration Act would havo to be done by Act of Parliament, and there would be ample time for the unions to state their case when that time came.

The Government did net want to do anything unfair; they wished to do something to meet the present unprecedented position. There was no finentlon but that rigid awards •were making it difficult to deal with un-