DOMINION PARLIAMENT

Waikato Times, Volume 119, Issue 19891, 21 May 1936, Page 10

DOMINION PARLIAMENT

ON STATUTE BOle. FACTORIES BILL PASSED. REPLY TO CRITICISM. WELLINGTON. Wednesday. The arguments of Opposition members against the application of the 40—hour week generally to industl‘)‘ were replied to by the Hon. H. 'l‘. Armstrong, Minister of Labour, in the third reading debate on the Fattories Amendment Bill in the House of liepresentaiiyes to-day. Reference was made by Mr Arm—strong to a statement by the Hon. A. Hamilton tOpposition——-\\’allacei that the international Labour conference had recommended the. reduction of hours to to a week only where it was possible. Surely, said the Minister, it was not suggested that the Govern—ment. was going to make mandatory" the operation or the 40-hour week in, cases where it. was not possible. It! was distinctly laid down in all the Government’s industrial legislation , that where reduced hours could be proved to be impracticable they should ‘ not operate. 1 Mr Armstrong said that the 40-hour ‘ week was already in operation in many factories. and others were trying it; out. "As a matter or fact,“ he added, "we shall have to hurry up and get it into operation or it. will be out—ol' date before it reaches the Statute Book. .\lany oilic9s work less lhan iii hoursla week at present, and the hard—est work some of them do is working ‘ points." “ Same Old Argument." 3 It had been said that the Bill overrode awards aim industrial agreements. Mr Armstrong- said. That; was not so. it lined the minimum below which the Court could not so. considerable dis—cretion was still left to the Court. "The only criticism from the Op—position is that the Bill will increase‘ costs to industry,” Mr Armstrong (1011- ‘ cluded. "That same argument has been put forward for years. I have been Listening to it almost since the cradle. It is threadbare and will not stand examination. lndustry has had to adapt itself to changes in the past and must do so in the future." The Hon. A. Hamilton \Upposition— Wallace) said that while it was undoubtedly ULCG'S'Sal‘y to make provision for the best wages and conditions that industry could ail'ord, consideration must also be given to the position of the employers and of those who pur—chased the products of the factories The ettect of the legislation would be that the consumer would have to pay more for the goods he purchased. There was provision in the Bill for eight paid holidays a year, said the Minister. It was strange that such a concession should be opposed by men IWhO would have no objection to giving four or five weeks‘ holiday to a man receiving £IOOO a year. ‘ The Opposition claimed that extra holiday pay would involve industry in an additional annual cost of £200,000, said Mr Armstrong. That sum was only a fraction of the protection which the Government provided for industry ,and no industry should be protected iwhich did not allow its employees to ‘live in ordinary decency. ; The Bill was read a third time and pass Ed. i ‘ LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. l .___. ARBITRATION BILL PASSED. ; (By Telegraph—Press Association.) . \VELLIXGTON, \V‘ednesday. ‘ The Industrial Conciliation and iArbitration Amendment Bill was put through the concluding stages and passed by the Legislatiye Council this , afternoon. i The Hon. V. A, \Vard (\\‘ellingtom isaid he could not subscribe to coin- ‘ pulsory unionism. He was in favour of i compulsory arbitration, but both sides should suffer equally if awards were :brolien. ‘lle intended to support the , Bill. . The Hon. R. Masters (Taranakl) said he favoured organised unionism. There was divided opinion in the country and especially in Labour circles, whether there should be compulsory arbitration.j and had the 1932 amending legislation‘ been giyen a longer trial it might havei been more successful. ‘ The Hon. ’l‘. Bloodworth (Auckland) said that awards were made under the‘ amending Act because the workers rea- ‘ lised that. any award was bcttcr than‘ none. ‘ ‘ Replying. the Leader of the. Councild the Hon. )1. Fagun, dealt with the awards made under the i 932 legislation, and said that the statement that less than 10 per cent had been can—l celled was misleading, as Dominion ‘awards had in many cases been re-‘ iplaced by local awards From a rei port prepared in June, 1934, it then ap—‘peared that since April. 1032. 191 i awards and agreements had been ‘ made, superseding iii) awards and I agreements, while 06 awards and i agreements had been wholly cancelled.‘ i In the committee stage the lion. \\’. ‘ Hayward (Canterbury) moved the de—- ‘ letion of the compulsory unionism i clausm and the lion. \V. Perry (\Vell—iington) supported him. The clause i was retained by 13 votes to t 3. i i The Bill was read a third time by i '24 miles to 7 and passed. ‘ _.___.___ ‘ DOMESTICS AND GARDENERS. 'Ntit UNIONS TO BE FORMED. ‘ __ i \\‘ELLINI'iTON, \\’rrlncsday. ‘ On the initiathc of the Hon. .\l. ‘Fagan. leader of the Legislative. Coun‘cil. the 1)l'0\i§loi‘l enabling domestic Fem-ants and gardeners to private em—ployment to iorm unions has been reimoyeti from the. Industrial and Con—-it-niauun Amendment out and the tclauso in the original .\ct stands. 1: ircads: "Awards ilnil industrial agree—iments are to apply only to workers ‘Umploycti for lii'lllmy gain.“