I.C. AND A. BILL.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19165, 23 November 1927, Page 12

I.C. AND A. BILL.

MANY AMENDMENTS. COURT TO REMAIN AS AT PRESENT. (FBE3S ASSOCIATION TEI,EGBASi.) WELLINGTON, November 22. The Industrial Conciliation and \rbitration Amendment Bill was reported to the House of Representatives from the Labour Bills Committee to-day with important amendments. The Committee reeommends that the constitution of the Court remain as at present, but agrees with the proposal in the Bill to exempt the farming industries from the operation of the Act. Sir John Luke, chairman of the Committee, brought down the.report. He briefly referred to amendments, amongst which was the deletion of clauses 2 to 10, inclusive, dealing with the constitution of the Court. There were also several consequential amendments necessitated by these deletions. Orcharding had been exempted from the operations of the Court, along with the farming industry. Every awarder industrial agreement in force to which the Bill applied, that was to say with refer' ence to tho farming industry, or dairy factories, would cease to operate on July 31st, 1928. Mr Fraaer (Wellington Central): Good heavens! Tearing up a scrap of paper? Mr Wilford: It's a thing of shreds and patches. Mr Parry: There'll be a lot of other amendments, too, just quietly, j Continuing, Sir John Luke said he had not regarded the Bill from the point of view of the farmers in New Zealand alone, but he had considered it from the point of view of the farming industry, world-wide. Farming in New Zealand was not so attractive as it formerly was, and they had to regard tho effect of that fact upon the question of unemployment. The two things were undoubtedly linked up, and there was great need of something being done to improve the position of the farming industry. We needed more production if we were to meet our obligations in connexion with the national debt. The farming industry stood apart from all others. It had difficulties not met by the other industries in tho cities, and for that reason some greater latitude for it was required. He therefore favoured exempting it from -the operation of the Bill, and giving it elbowroom to expand and produce the best results. He did not stand for reduction of wages, but he stood for the removal of impediments which prevented farmers from reaching their full developments. Mr Howard (Christchurch South) said the Labour Bills Conimittee had sat two weeks on the Bill, heard 44 witnesses, ranging from workers to university professors, but not_a word of that evidence had the chairman of the Committee given to the House. He had left severely alone. The report was not a report on the Bill at all; it was a few words conveying the chairman's opinion of this country. The report shook his faith in the Labour Bills Committee, which in the first place was loaded against Labour by a Government majority, and, further, one member of the Committee seemed to have' been in possession of all sorts of Government information that was not given to other members. That member had even sent to outside bodies asking them to pass resolutions against the Bill. But when resolutions in favour of the Bill were passed they were' suppressed. Was that proper conduct on the part of a man who ought' to be sitting in the capacity of juryman? He then proceeded to review the evidence given before the Committee, which, he said, was overwhelmingly against the Bill. Mr Parry (Auckland Central) attacked the report of the Committee, and defended the principle of preference to unionists.

, Mr Armstrong (Christchurch East) said the chairman • had defended the Bill becauso it was in the interests of the farmers, but there was nothing in tho Bill that interested farmers. They never had been subject to awards of the Arbitration Court, and the Bill was only another method of fooling the farmers. No word in the English language could adequately describe the deceptive nature of the measure. Mr Jordan (Manakau) declared that the motive behind the Bill was to force down wages, and to do that the Reform Party was seeking to abolish arbitration.

Mr Forbes (Hurunui) said the question of arbitration should not be treated as a Party on.e. Such a great principle in our industrial life should receive the hearty support of both Parties. So far it had not received that from all Parties, but with all its disadvantages it had tended to create industrial peace. In that way it was one of the soundest principles which any country could 'adopt. Personally, he favoured the constitution of the Court as stated in the Bill as originally brought down, and he regretted that no explanation had been given as to why those clauses had been struck out. The whole position required thorough investigation, and he did not approve of the attempt to deal with the position in the present hurried fashion. He favoured a conference during the recess, and a comprehensive Bill next session as the result. Mr Wilford (Hutt) said the clauses struck out were the clauses he wanteti, and he felt at a dead end because they had gone. The Hpn. Mr Anderson (Minister for Labour) said that these clauses- were being kept for the conference. Mr Wilford said he was glad to hear that, because he believed the Court so constituted would be a Conciliation Court, which was what was wanted. The report was "talked out'" at the 5.30 adjournment, but when the House resumed at 7.30 p.m. the Prime Minister moved the suspension of the Standing Orders for the purpose of permitting the debate to proceed. He added that when this report was adopted there were other Committee reports which they were anxious to get before the House. Mr Holland: Do you propose to bring them up to«night? The Prime Minister: That is for the House to say. Mr Holland strongly objected to the House agreeing to the motion. It meant that important legislation was being set aside to make way for a Bill which no one asked for, and no one wanted. The Bill was being opposed from one end

.years by annual instalments or otherwise. 8. That the Assembly appoint a special committee to take charge of the collection of the fund, and that the following be a committee to nominate the same:—Revs. D. D. Scott, G. Budd, J. A. AsKcr. R. M. Ryburn, W. McLean, Dr. Merrington, J. L. Rohinson; Messrs S. J. Harbutt, A D. Thomson. D. G. Clark. W. H. Rose, and A. Gow. Mr A. D. Thomson, convener. After some discussion the following was derided upon:- 25 per cent. Beneficiary Fund; 10 per cent. Youth of Hmrcn Fund for Educational Purposes; 10 per cent, for purchase of sites: 4° ner cent, for fund for advances to concrcgations and other Church organisations at a low rate of interest with sinking fund; 5 per cent, to emergency fund.

of the country to the other, and ho objected to its being given precedence over other measures which were of greateT urgency. Sir Joseph Ward (Invercargill) said he could not understand why, in a contentious matt< such as this evidently was, the Minister for Labour did not get up and tell members what he wanted, and what it was proposed to do. The result of this want of candour must be that members would be talking half the night just because they were _ not told what the views of the Ministry were about it. Mr Fraser declared that the House was entitled to some reason for the course proposed by the Government. There was no clamour for this Bill, but there was clamour for the Licensing Bill, and the Gaming Bill, which were being set aside. It was unfair to rush and scurry legislation of this kind through at what everyone believed was the end of the session. The opposition continued until 10.15, when the Whips were seen in conference, and, obviously under some arrangement, a division was taken, when the motion was agreed to by 53 votes to 14. Sir John Luke then replied to the original debate, and the report of the Labour Bills Committee was tabled.