CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 2993, 17 September 1908, Page 5

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL.

AMENDMENTS OF LABOUR BILLS COMMITTEE. DISCUSSION IN PARLIAMENT. BY TELEGRAPH —PBESS ASSOCIATION. WELLINGTON, September 16. jln the House of Representatives, yesterday, the Hon. J. A. Millar moved the committal of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Bill. He said the question with which the Bill dealt embodied the must difficult problem of the present time—a proolem of world-wide application. We had had some years of experience of arbitration, and though many said it was an absolute failure the experience of the other countries had showed it had been a success though some people might be creating a discontent with a view to upsetting the present system. The people of New Zealand were determined that it should be maintained. The recent dissatisfaction with the Court had been due to the fact that wages had not been increased as much as was wanted, but the Court could not go on increasing wages indefinitely, and the workers must be told so candidly. The workers complained that the increased wages received were valueless as they were absorbed by the increased cost of living. Did they, he asked, suppose than an employer would bear all the cost or. higher wages? Nowhere in the world would they find such a doctrine as that obtaining in practical life, tie denied that the remedy lay in increasing the tariff, because to increase the tariff was to handicap our exports. Our tariffs were designed to help local industries tu go on. If we increased wages we I merely helped the imported article to i come "in, which purchase meant the I decline of our industries. It was I therefore necessary to evolve some I machinery that would bring about an improvement in the relations existing between capital and labour. The existing machinery had proved clearly ineffective in me.past two years., lc was proposed to abolish conciliation boards.. This was objected to by some, but he could show good reason why they shouid be abolished. The boards were intended to conciliate, but instead tney had become law courts in which parties fought one another. . The olame lay rather at the door of certain leaders of unions who had become seized of the'idea that union representatives should always fight, and so he said if we wanted conciliation we must provide machinery to obtain it. There seemed some who were unable to hold office without causing trouble (hear, hear) and he could tell these men they would be thought more of by unions if they created less trouble. He had letters from unions to show they did not approve of these agitators. He desired to tell the unions frankly that no Parliament would ever give unions such powers as would enable them to prevent any man from earning a livelihood'in this country. Mr W. F. Massey agreed that the problem was a difficult one. This Bill was a confession that our system of conciliation and arbitration had failed, and it was for the House to determine whether they would retain on the Statute Book a measure which had failed. While a strong believer in conciliation he thought no measure should be retained which would discourage enterprise, and be a drag upon an industry. The Act had done away,with the sympathetic accord which' existed between employer and employed before so much resorting to court became vogue. He preferred the Canadian system of investigation and conciliation to our compulsory system. The most important changes made in the Bill by the Labour Bills Committee were those in part 3 regarding conciliation. He strongly supported the new conciliation pronosals. Two classes of men suffered under the present law—the frontranker who was 25 per cent, better than his fellow, and the old and feeble worker who had to beg for a permit to work. Compulsory arbitration was wrong in principle. Sir J. G. Ward denied that the increase in the cost of living was due to the Arbitration Act.' it was due to the prices of our produce in '. the Old Country, and to the high ' rents prevailing in towns. Every amendment made in the Bill by the Labour Bills Committee had been moved by the Minister for Labour, and the Government sincerely <esired the passage of the measure, which would ensure industrial peace. Massey had advocated the Canadian system, but' the defect of that was that it imposed a penalty of imprisonment, and he wa" opposed to imprisonment for offences under the Act. He hoped the Bill would he speedily passed when the session could end within a fortnight. Mr A. R. Barclay said that he had given notice of fifty amendments and would give nbtice of ten more tomorrow. He declared that the wrong method had been adopted in dealing with legislation of this kind. Mr Ell said that compulsory arbitration was necessary as a protection against sweating employers. It was favoured I y employers as guaranteeing equality of conditions. He denied that the increased cost of living was due to the Act. Mr Poole continued the debate, tracing the legislation passed in the interests of labour. He strongly ad • vocated conciliation as the best way of settling disputes. ,Dr. Chappie said that the present Bili was an improvement on the county law, but it would be still further improved if we either made the Court an expert bench, doing away with the Conciliation Council, or made the Conciliation Council the final Court of equity.