ARBITRATION BILL

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, 2 December 1927, Page 8

ARBITRATION BILL

DEBATE IN THE HOUSE MATTER OF TREMENDOUS IMPORTANCE PRIME MINISTER’S VIEWS. (Special to “Tribune.”) Wellington, Dec. 2. The debate on the Arbitration Bill was continuing at midnight and there was no sign of progress being made off the short title. The Rt. Hon. J G. Coates said he regretted that he had not had an opportunity of hearing ail of the discussion. Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Avon): It has been most peaceful. Mr. Coates: I am glad to hear that because it is a matter of tremendous importance to this country. Nothing has a more important bearing on the future of this country than the question we are discussing. So far as I am concerned I desire hon. members to feel that 1 am not one of those who would be a party to anything which would drag down the worker. So far as I have a say in matters, his conditions and welfare must be considered. EFFECT OF THE SYSTEM. The question that the committee had to consider, said Mr. Coates, was what was the effect of the existing system on the principal industry bi the country. The present system fixed the costs upon the farmer without any reference to his position and the farmer was up against it. He wanted to get rid of something thai he felt was tying him down and getting him bent and old after a lifetime’s work. The Arbitration Court, from the farmer’s point of view, was having the effect of putting a load upon hi s shoulders that he could not afford to pay. Mr. W. E. Parry (Auckland Central): You will always have that under a national system or organisation. Mr. Coates: What is this country’s great national industry? Mr. J. A. Lee (Auckland East): What is it producing—men or butter? PROSPERITY THAT COUNTS. The Prime Minister: It is all very well talking. It is prosperity that counts. 11 loads were placed upon men that they could not -bear then the natural result must be to undermine prosperity and bring about poverty and misery. Every person in this country depends upon the prim, ary industry. Mr. F. N. Bartram (Grey Lynn): There is the other side to the picture. The Prime Minister said that the moment the country’s exportable wealth fell everybody felt il The;, had look at the matter from the point of view of “New Zealand and Company.'’ Mr. E. J. Howard (Christchurch South): New Zealand unlimited I

Mr. Coates: New Zealand and Company.—We are all in it. He was a farmer, although he could not help it that a number of people said that he could not speak for tin farmer; he could only speak from the farmer’s point of view as he saw it. Mr. W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne): You want to, but the others are pulling y ou back. Mr. Coates said that the farmer was asking for relief but the farmer said that it was the Arbitration Court that was responsible for his position. The Arbitration Court was never intended to enter into the ramifications of the farming industry in the way it had done. He asked members whether the farmer meant to pull down wages. Mr. Parry: What is the object ol the bill if it is not to reduce wages? OBJECT OF THE BILL. Mr. Coates: I say the object of the bill is not to reduce wages. Mr. Bartram: Then what is the object ? Mr. Coates: The object of the bill is to bring the fanner and his emplayee into close contact. Mr. J. A. Lee: By destroying the bridge. The Prime Minister denied that this was so, but said that the object was to try to bring about a common understanding. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. H. E. Holland): How does the bill make that possible? What is the machinery that will bring the farnier and the other fellow together? Mr. Coates: If I understand the Labour Disputes Mr. Holland: It makes it possible to have a legal strike. Mr. Coates said that the farmer looked to Parliament to see that his interests were protected. NO REGRETS. Mr. W. L. Martin (Raglan): Like they did with the Control Board! Mr. Coates: What does the hon. gentleman mean? I have no regrets over the Control Board—none whatever. Control was useful and, properly understood, it would give the best value. Mr. Martin: It never had the chance. Mr. Coates: It is just a question whether it ever had a chance. Mr. Sullivan: Suppose we get on with the job. The Prime Minister said that if the farmers were struggling and could not get their heads above water the House had to direct attention to their position.