LC. AND A. BILL.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19166, 24 November 1927, Page 9

LC. AND A. BILL.

DEBATE IN HOUSE. CHANGES IN COURT. "TIME NOT RIPE," SAYS MINISTER. (PKBSB ASSOCIATION TBLEQRAM.) WELLINGTON, November 23. The Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Bill was again before the House of Representatives this evening. The Minister for Labour (Mr Anderson) moved that the Bill be committed. Tn doing so he said that tew Labour Bills introduced into the House had created so much discussion m the country, and the effect of it had been to drivo Capital aud Labour together in a way that he was delighted to see and lie hoped the good feeling would continue. When considering tho Amendng Act, his idea was to alter the constitution of the Court in the diroction approved of by the Member for Hutt. That was the direction in which all thoughtful men thought, but there were difficulties, for it meant scrapping the Court and installing a Judge of the Supreme Court as chairman of the Conciliation Council But evidently the time was not ripe for that change. Tho Bill had been asked for by the great producing industries of the Dominion, and while some people said the Act should not bo altered at all. such requests eoul'd not be ignored. When, however, it was agreed that the Act should be amended, there seemed to be no common ground. One wanted one thing, and one wanted another so that any Minister who attempted the task would quickly find how difficult that task was. Fewer Strikes? The Minister then proceeded to outlino the history of the Arbitration Act, arguing from historical facts that it would be unwise to repeal the Act. It had been said that the Act had not prevented strikes. It may not have prevented them altogether, but judged by world wide statistics, it had certainly kept them down It had been said that he was trying to destroy the Act, but the fact «is that he was frying to improve it. It had been administered by some of the ablest Ministers who had ever sat in the House, and by some of the ablest Judges New Zealand had ever had. When he proposed to amend the Bill he did so with full knowledge of those facts. One of the reasons why he proposed to amend the Act was because of the bitterness caused during last election of Labour's representative on the Court. No man elected in an atmosphere of such unseemly wrangles could act as he should act, in a judicial capacity, and so he proposed to alter the constitution of £he Court. He was not going on with that amendment, because he found that the feeling of the country was against it. Therefore, it would be folly to proceed with something that was not wanted. Many Resolutions. The first evidence that tho Court was unpopular came from Labour unions. He quoted a numuer of resolutions passed in condemnation of, the Louru by unions, and similar typical resolutions passed by Chambers m of Commerce, Employers' Associations, ana Farmers' Unions. Such protests could not be ignored, . and their effect baa been to bring both parties together. All he asked now was that they should carry on the good work. The relations between Labour and Capital were on a better basis to-day than they had ever been. In reply to Labour dissent, the Minister said he could iinderstand the Opposition objecting to certain clauses in the Bill, but they could not expect to have all their own way. Other interests must have equal consideration. To show that he took that view, he proceeded to explain the clauses of the Bill, and his reasons for consenting to amendments made by the-' committee. Farmers and tho Act. He said that farmers from all over tho Dominion had asked to be placed, outside the Act; they wanted to be able to make their own arrangements with those they employed, and he felt that those arrangements would not injure the workers. He had made provision for piece work," because he felt it to be one of the best things for New Zealand. AH that was required waa fair dealing between employer and employee. Under those conditions he would like to see piece work adopted wherever possible. The clause providing for the Court taking into consideration the state of a particular industry was necessary. Unless this ,was done, and excessive wages were awarded, they would kill the industry, which would then be of no benefit to anybody. What he wanted in New Zealand to-day was industrial peace. To get that a great deal more common sense must be exhibited than had been exhibited during the last few years. This Bill had helped in bringing opposing interests together, because they began to see where they were going to cet to if they lost tho Court He hoped the House would exempt farmers from the Act. Ho moved that the Bill be committed. Position of Unions. Mr McKeen (Wellington South) said tho Minister had quoted resolutions against the Arbitration Court, and asking for the removal of the presiding Judge, but not one of those protesting unions had asked for a change in tho constitution of the Court as first proposed in tho Bill. Fifteen of the twenty-one clauses of tho Bill had been struck out by the Labour Bills Committee, which showed how little of tho Bill was desired. Mr Lysnar (Gisborne) said the trouble was not between master and man, but it was the agitator who made trouble. For that reason he favoured exemption for farmers from tho provisions of the Bill. Mr Veitch (Wanganui) said the evidence given before tho Labour Bills Committee gave him tho greatest satisfaction, because it convinced him that tho people of New Zealand were thoroughly satisfied that the Arbitration Court had been a great blessing to the people. The Farmers' Case. The Hon. Mr Hawken (Minister for Agriculture) said there was a general feeling among farmers that tho Arbitration Court had lessened efficiency and reduced the production of the worker, and for that r.ason it was not a benefit but a disadvantage to the people. Employers wanted to pay higher wages, but that could only be done if there was increased efficiency. The farmers did not object t< paying shearers high rates so long as they could get fast and efficient men. Rather than put up with the conditions of the threshing machine award the farmers in Canterbury were now buying small threshing machines which they could operate themselves, and so get rid of the award. Shearers were amongst the most efficient workers in the world, a result which had been brought rbout by payment by results. If this was so, then why not try payment by results in connexion with some of our other industries? Mr Sullivan (Avon) claimed that the effect of arbitration had not been to reduce efficiency and production, and the workers of New Zealand would

deeply resent that imputation. All figures available proved exactly the contrary. Mr Ransom (Pahiatua) said he would Bupport the Bill, particularly that portion exempting farmers from the operation of the Act.