ARBITRATION BILL.

Taranaki Daily News, 8 February 1922, Page 5

ARBITRATION BILL.

THREE DAYS IN DEBATE. SLOW PROGRESS MADE. LABOR’S HOSTILE ATTITUDE. By Telegraph.—Preu Association. Wellington, Last Night. The House went into committee this afternoon on the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill. On clause two, which repeals the previous provision that the judge of the Arbitration Court should be a member of the Supreme Court Bench, Mr. J. McCombs (Lyttelton) questioned the wisdom of the repeal. The services of the Arbitration Court judge might often be valuable in the Supreme Court, and they should be available if required. Mr. Massey said the judge of the Arbitration Court would have exactly the same status as a Supreme Court judge, though he would not sit on the Supreme Court Bench. He would give the whole of his time to Arbitration Court work. ’

The clause was passed. Mr. M. J. Savage (Auckland West) moved a lengthy amendment of clause three, which reduces the voting power of the larger unions. The amendment provided one vote for every mem be. of a union in electing a representative on the Arbitration Court. This principle, he claimed, was affirmed in the Bill introduced by the Premier in 1913. After the debate had proceeded for some time the Minister raised a point that the amendment was an appropriation clause, and therefore could not be moved by a private member.

Mr. A. S. Malcolm (chairman of committees) ruled that there was some color for thinking the amendment involved expenditure, but as it had not been demonstrated to him that there would be greater expenditure than was incurred at present he would give the mover of the amendment the benefit of the doubt, and rule the amendment in order.

UNIONS’ VOTING POWER.

Mr. P. Fraser (Wellington Central) protested against clause 3, the need of which had not been in any way justified by the Minister.

Mr.-Savage’s amendment was defeated by 45 votes to 22. Mr. Fraser moved an amendment that the maximum number of votes permitted to any one union be increased from five to twenty-fivey This was lost by 45 votes to 23. 1

Clause three was then adopted by 45 votes to 24.

Mr. McCombs said they had been three days discussing the Bill, and had not been given any reason why the measure should be brought forward. He moved to report progress so that the Minister might have an opportunity of studying the Bill. The amendment was lost by 40 votes to 11. On clause 4 the Minister said the clause was put in at rhe Court’s request to bring about uniformity in the currency of awards.

Mr. E. J. Howard (Christchurch) said the explanation was valueless, as the Court already had all the power asked for in this measure.

The Hon. W. Downie Stewart said there was a possibility of confusion between the Act and late;; amending legislation, which might result in some awards in certain industries running beyond the limit of the three years. Mr. Howard moved an amendment to extend the scope of awards to districts beyond those in which they are made, where they affect the same industries. The amendment was lost by 44 votes to 15.

On clause 5 Mr. Howard moved an amendment which limited the power of the Court to only amend such points in the awards as were in dispute. He did not believe in the clause at all, but claimed his amendment would simplify the position.

The discussion proceeded on the amendment until 11.15 p.m., when a division was taken, resulting in the rejection of the amendment by 52 votes to 12, and the clause was added to the Bill. STATUS OF UNIONS.

On the Minister’s motion clause six was struck out, the Minister promising to introduce a new clause at the end of the Bill giving the E.F.C.A. the same status under the Act in the matter of registration as the A.S.R.S.

Clause seven, permitting local authorities to pay less than award rates on their relief works, was strongly objected to by the Labor Party, on the ground that it would have the effect of depressing wages generally. Sir John Luke (Wellington North) said the clause was devised to meet general unemployment. It was not intended that it would be used as a means of reducing general wages. The clause was adopted by 45 votes to 13. In clause 10, which provides that the Arbitration Court may amend awards or industrial agreements with respect to rates of wages, Mr. McCombs moved an amendment that before this course is adopted the Court should fix and advertise the time and place for taking evidence, but this was lost on the voices, the Minister having promised to move a similar amendment later on.

Mr. McCombs also moved the following proviso: “Provided the total reduction in the rates of remuneration as herein defined which Court may determine shall not exceed in the aggregate 10 per cent.” The discussion is proceeding. (Left sitting.) AMENDING AWARDS. PROVISION TO TAKE EVIDENCE. (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) Wellington, Last Night. One point against the clause in the Arbitration Bill proposing to give the Court power to amend awards upon which great emphasis was laid during yesterday’s debate was that there was no provision for the taking of evidence before embarking on such a course.

The Prime Minister promised an amendment in this direction, and a clause was circulated to-night in which the Minister for Labor (Hon. G. J. Anderson) proposes to add the following sub-clause to clause 10: “Provided that after having ascertained the extent of. any increase or decrease in the cost of living, and before making a ■/ general order under this section, the Court shall afford such opportunity as it thinks proper to representatives appointed by the parties bound by the awards and industrial agreements to be heard by the Court with .respect to the amount by which any rates of remuneration should be increased or decreased, save that the failure of any parties to appoint any such representatives shall not affect the validity of any general order made by the Court under this section,”