ARBITRATION.

Taranaki Daily News, 6 February 1922, Page 5

ARBITRATION.

NEW BILL OPPOSED. LABOR HOSTILE TO MEASURE. AN ALL-DAY DEBATE. The new Arbitration Bill occupied the House all day on Saturday, and was still being discussed when the House rose at midnight. Labor’s hostility prolonged the discussion, the members of the Labor Party interpreting the aims of the Bill as an attack on the rights of workers.

By Telegraph.—Press Association.

Wellington, Feb. 4. Sir John Luke, chairman of the Labor Bills Committee, brought up the report of the committee on the Industrial Conciliation and A'r'bitra'tlion .Amendment Bill, and moved that the Bill as amended, together with the evidence, lie upon the table.

Mr. E. J. Howard Christchurch South) said if the report was adopted it meant ruling the Arbitration Act off the statute book. He especially deprecated the clause which took away from the A.S.R.S. the right of using the Arbitration. Court if they desired to do so. Because these men invariably settled their disputes round the table it was now brought as a charge against them that they had never been able to raise an industrial dispute. The Bill robbed from the Act all conciliation, the best part of the whole machinery, and it was to retain that principle that Labor intended to put xip a strenuous fight.

Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Avon) wanted to know who asked for the Bill. Both employers and unions repudiated it. Judging by the drastic provisions originally contained in the measure it was clear that Cabinet had not given it the mature consideration it deserved. Obviously the Government wished to encourage small industrial organisations and to impose penalties on large organisations. He therefore concluded that the Bill’s great object was to crush the Alliance of Labor, which emphatically did not stand for abolition of the Arbitration Act. The Government evidently intended to use the big stick instead of strengthening the conciliation section of the Act. In this they showed an unfortunate lack of imagination. FACTOR IN UNREST. Mr. H. E. Holland (Leader of the Labor Party) smid the Bill might pass and it might be placed on the Statute Book, but, if so, it could only be at the risk oi industrial unrest, and possibly an industrial upheaval. He criticised the policy of refusing to allow the railwaymen to vote on the election of a member oi the Arbitration Court. The latter, further, was to be empowered to attack an award by ordering an increase or a reduction in miners’ wages in accordance with the variation in the cost of living. Mr. Holland urged that every effort should be devoted to improving the standard of living of the workers. The history of the present Government bad been one of antagonism to Labor. Nothing had been brought forward to justify the Bill, which was designed to take from industrial organisations the rights and franchise they fought so hard to win.

Mr. J. McCombs (Lyttelton) said the Bill was unnecessary, and simply postponed the day when Arbitration Court proceedings would get back to a normal state, free from the restrictions of the 1918 legislation, which was purely temporary to meet special conditions arising out of the war. Now it was proposed to make the Arbitration Court, a dictator,with power to impest any wages rates it pleased. It was possible if, by a miracle, prices got back to the 1914 level, for a judge to actually fix workers’ wages 20 per cent, below; those ruling in 1914. Mr. W. E. Parry (Auckland Central) reviewed the growth of the arbitration system in New Zealand. He recognised it was necessary to have some tribunal to hold the scale between employer and employee, and nothing should be done to weaken the tribunal’s powers in this direction.

Mr. W. A. Veitch (Wanganui) said the fact that the Arbitration Court had throughout its career given sufficient satisfaction to warrant a continuance of the principles governing its operations he thought the proposals in the Bill were undesirable, conferring power on the Court which was pernicious in principle. The trade union leaders of the country were anxious to secure stable conditions, and to this end desired that the principles governing the Arbitration Court should remain unchanged. Referring to the cost of living, Mr. Veitch contended that the fall was not sufficient to warrant any reduction in wages. Mr. F. N. Bartram (Grey Lynn) condemned the attempt to disfranchise railwaymen in connection with the Arbitration Court. THREAT OF “FIGHT”. Mr. M. J. Savage (Auckland West) said the moment this Bill came into law, and public servants and other sections of the industrial community found they could not get economic freedom, they would get together in a solid body and fight for what they desired. This economic freedom could be conferred by Parliament, and if it was not conceded now it must come, and would come after a struggle. Mr. Parry moved an amendment that ‘‘the Bill be referred back to the committee for further consideration.

Mr. P. Fraser (Wellington Central), in seconding the amendment, said the genesis of the Bill was wrapped in mystery, but it was suggested that clauses ten and eleven had been framed to meet the desires of the Arbitration Court. This he condemned as likely to undermine the foundations of justice. It was unthinkable that the Court should have a hand in the framing of the legislation undej which it would exercise its functions. The Bill was not wanted by any union, large or small, and it seemed that the employers were not anxious for it. Why, therefore, and at whose instigation, was it introduced? Mr. W. T. Jennings (Waitomo) said he had been impressed by the arguments advanced by the Labor members in urging that the Bill be referred back, and would vote for the amendments they proposed to submit.

Mr. S. G. Smith (Taranaki) agreed that the Bill should be referred back, as he believed it contained provisions that would prove disastrous to the country. Mr. J. Edie (Bruce) suggested that it would be good policy for the Government to let the Bill be referred back, as the adoption of that course would cut the ground from under the feet of those now attacking the measure. Mr. E. J. Howard (Christchurch), speaking as a member of the committee which considered the Bill, urged that as the jntmben of that wammittu had &o£ alg

had an opportunity of hearing the evidence and considering it he had pleaded to have the Bill submitted to Mr. Justice Sim and to Mr. Haggard (Conciliation Commissioner) for their opinion, but these suggestions were not accepted. He pointed out that the Conciliation Commissioner

had been very successful, in the arranging of disputes. The Bill had not received the consideration it deserved.

“NOBODY’S BABY.”

Mr. Howard said that if the men got the idea that Parliament was not giving them a square deal, the result would be unsatisfactory. Clause ten would do away with conciliation for eighteen months, since it gave the Arbitration Court power to amend awards as it thought fit, without reference to the 1 conciliation councils. What was this but disregard of agreements. After this who could revive the old question-; Who said “To hell with agreements.”? The clause was disowned by everyone, and no one knew whence it emanated; it was nobody’s baby. Mr. Howard concluded by asking again that the matter be submitted for the opinion of Mr. Justice Sim, or withdraw the measure and so earn the goodwill of the workers of the Dominion. Mr. T. M. Wilford (Leader of the Opposition) said he believed in arbitration, as it was an appeal to reason which should, if possible, be made before a dispute reached an acute stage. He did not believe in the present constitution of the Arbitration Court as a permanent institution. A better system was the appointment of conciliation councils for various industries, on which representatives of the trades or callings concerned would sit. Their men would be familiar with the technicalities of the matters under review. No man on a permanent tribunal could become fully acquainted with the details of every one of a variety jof disputes that come before him.

Mr. Wjlford asked why it was proposed to take away the railwaymen’s right to participate in the selection of the personnel of the Arbitration Court. He pointed out that until a satisfactory settlement of the cost-of-living question was reached nothing permanent could be accomplished by the Arbitration Court. A commission should be set up to investigate the cost of living, to include all groups of the cost. If the Minister in charge could not give an explanation of the various points raised, then surely he could not object to the Bill being referred back. Mr. E. Kellett (Dunedin North) supported the reference of the Bill back to the committee. The Bill, if passed, would result in the formation of one big union. 1 There should be only one Parliament in New Zealand—the one elected by the people of the country.

The discussion was proceeding when the telegraph office closed at 9 pan.

SUNDAY INTERVENES. DEBATE NOT FINISHED. Wellington, Last Night. After nine o’clock on Saturday evening the House continued the debate on the motion to table the report of the Labor Bills Committee on the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill No. 2.

Mr. J. Horn (Wakatipu) considered the Bill should be referred back to the committee. He felt that the opposition shown to the Bill indicated want of confidence in the Government and the House. He thought conciliation councils more effective in settling disputes than the Arbitration Court.

The debate was carried on by Messrs. Veitch, Holland, Poland, Statham and Sidey. Mr. Sullivan was speaking at midnight when the Speaker left the chair.