PARLIAMENT

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, 24 November 1927, Page 6

PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ARBITRATION AMENDMENT. SITTING ON SATURDAY. Wellington, Nov. 24. When the House resumed at 7.20 p.m., the Hon. G. J. Anderson moved that the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill be committed. In doing so he said few labour bills introduced into the House had created so much discussion in the country, and the effect of it had been to drive capital and labour together in a way he was delighted to see, and he hoped the feeling would continue when considering the amendment of the Act. His idea was to alter the constitution of the Court in the direction approved 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. The bill had been asked for by the great producing industries of the Dominion, and while some people said the Act should not be altered at all, such requests could 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 another, so that any Minister who attempted the task would quickly find how difficult that task was. The Minister then proceeded to outline the history of the Arbitration Act, arguing from historical facts that it would be unwise to abolish the Act It had been said the Act had not prevented strikes. It may not have prevented strikes altogether. Judged by world-wide statistics it certainly had kept them down. TRYNG TO IMPROVE IT. It had been said he was trying to destroy the Act, but he was trying to improve it. It had been administered by some of the ablest Ministers who ever sat in the House and by some of the ablest Judges New Zealand has ever had. When he • proposed to amend the bill he did so with a full knowledge of those facts. One of the reasons why he proposed to amend the Act was because of the bitterness caused during the 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 the Court. He was not going on with the amendment, because he fouipl the feeling of the country was against it. It, therefore, would be folly to proceed with something that was not wanted. The first evidence that the Court was unpopular came from the labour unions. In reply to Labour dissent, the Minister said he could understand the Opposition objecting to certain clauses in the bill, but they could not expect to have all their o.wn way. He said that farmers from all over the Dominion had asked to be placed outside the Act, because they wanted to be able to make their own arrangements with those they employ, and he felt those arrangements would not injure workers. He had made provision for piece work, because he felt it to be one of the best things for New Zealand. All that was requised was fair dealing between employer and employee. Under those conditions he would like to see piece work adopted wherever possible. INDUSTRIAL PEACE. What we wanted in New Zealand today 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 opposition interests together, because they began to see where they were going to get to if they lost the Court. He hoped the House would exempt farmers from the Act. They had asked for it and if 'they were workers they would be able to get it. He moved that the bill be committed.

Mr R. McKeen (Wellington South) said the Minister had quoted resolutions against the Arbitration Court and asking for the removal of the presiding Judge, but not one of those protestng unions had asked for a change in the constitution of the Court a« first proposed in the bill. Fifteen of the 21 clauses of the bill had been struck out by the Labour Bills Com-

mittee, which showed how little of the bill was desired. The debate was carried on by Messrs. Lysnar, Sullivan, Ransom. Waite, Mattin, and Veitch, the Hons. 0. J. Hawken and A. D. McLeod and Sir Joseph Ward. CONFERENCE DURING RECESS SUGGESTED. Mr H. G. R. Mason (Eden), said the Bill was destructive of Arbitration Act, limiting its usefulness and thus ‘mutilating one of the greatest achievements of the old Liberal regime. He thought a conference during recess might result in something constructive and would be well worlh the time it would take. Mr. F. N. Bartram (Grey Lynn) said the Labour Bills Committee had killed portions of the bill. The pity was they had not decently buried the whole of it with the epitaph, “Here lies the crowning iniquity of the Coates’ Administration.” The Bill was against the weight of the evidence and 95 per cent, of the people were astonished at the temerity of the government in proceeding with it. He urged the Minister to accept the suggestion by Sir Joseph Ward to drop the bill this session and hold a conference during recess. The Bill was one of the worst pieces of class legislation in modern times. AN AMENDMENT. After 3 a.m. Mr P. Fraser (Wellington Central), moved as an amendment that in view of the evidence given before the Labour Bills Committee the Bill be not allowed to proceed and that the whole subject matter be referred to a conference of representatives of workers, employers, and farmers of the Dominion to be convened by the Government for consideration and to report to the House. He urged that this course would put the whole industrial issue on a more stable basis than ever it had been before. Sir John Luke (Wellington North), said there were 22 witnesses before the Labour Bills Committee, who favoured the Act and 20 who wanted a change, particularly in the direction of the exemption of farmers. On division the amendment was lost by 45 votes to 12. The Minister in reply said that the portion of the Bill referring to the constitution of the Court would be referred to a conference during the recess. No one was interfering with the principle of arbitration. The farmers were simply being legislated out of the Act in the same way as the unions could deregister themselves. MOTION CARRIED. On the question that the Bill be committed another division was called for, when the motion was carried by 45 votes to 12. The House then went into committee but on the motion of the Minister progress was immediately reported. In moving the adjournment of the House, the Prime Minister intimated that the House would sit on Saturday The House then rose at 3.55 a.m., until 2.30 p.m. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. The Legislative Council met at 2.30 p.m. to-day. The Coalmines Amendment Bill was reported by the Goldfields and Mines Committee with technical amendments. The Ashley River Improvement Amendment Bill was read the second time, put through the final stages, and passed without amendment. The Child Welfare Amendment Bill was read the second time pro forma and referred to the Education Committee. The Christchurch Tramway District Amendment Bill was reported by the Local Bills Committee without amendments and put through the final stages and passed. The Council adjourned at 2.45 p.m. until to-morrow.