Untitled

Hokitika Guardian, 12 September 1929, Page 4

After a sitting that extended over 46 hours, the Ho-se of Representatives nt Canberra, by a slender majority, passed the second reading of the Bill, introduced by thb IPrime Minister, which provides for the abolition of the Federal Arbitration Court. The Government failed to retain this majority when the Bill was under consideration in committee, and so suffered a defeat. Mr Hughes, whose allegiance to the Nationalist Party has always been of a somewhat frail character, opposed the Bill with a venom, that was no doubt accentuated by the fact that he is excluded from the counsels of the Ministerialists, and, along with him, three other members, upon whose general support the Prime Minister probably placed no great amount ot reiance, deserted the Government in the division of the Bill. Mr Hughes’s amendment in committee, was to the ■ effect that the operation of the Bill shall be suspended until* the will of the electors had been taken regardi ing it, eitlier by referendum or at a general election. This is the class of amendment that attracted the support of the weak-kneed members of the Nationalist Party, since, upon the plea that they are prepared to “trust the people,” they will be enabled to shirk their own responsibility. And necessarily the Labour Opposition voted for this amendment, distasteful to it tuough it may be to follow Mr Hughes. But the whole position of the Labour Party in relation to the Bill is rather peculiar. The resistance which it is offering to the measure, says the Otago Times, can only be based on the ground that the mamtenance of the Federal Arbitration Co ! rt is desirable in the general intere ts of industry. The case, however, for the abolition of the Federal Court rests, in large measure, on th fact that the industrial Labour Party is not, ns a whole, amenable to the Court—tnat important sections or the party have set the Court at defiance by ignoring and flouting its awards. It is. notorious, also, that the parliamentary members of the party have, on those occasions, been far from active in urging obedience to the Court for which they are now expressing ui.eir admiration. When, therefore, Labour legislators in Australia have denounced the Bill that is before Parliament it lias been necessary to remind them that they have been instruments, willing or unwilling, in bringing about the degradation of the law which it is proposed to supersede.