Fight Still On

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 209, 23 November 1927, Page 12

Fight Still On

ALTERED ARBITRATION BILL Farmers’ Exemption is Main Issue (THE SUN'S Parliamentary Reporter.j WELLINGTON, Tuesday. THE proposed reconstitution of the Arbitration Court as indicated in the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill, has proved so contentious in all sections of the community, that the Labour Bills Committee of the House of Representatives, which considered the Bill, would not undertake the responsibility of sending the proposals forward. All these clauses were deleted by the committee and are being retained bj’ the Government for a conference later between employers and employees. The proposal to give the .Minister of Labour power to call compulsory conferences to avoid strikes and lock-outs has also been deleted. The committee recommended that the clauses exempting the farming industry, including orchardists, should be retained, and largely upon this aspect of the measure Labour . members had a great deal to say and expressed determination to fight the Bill.

fpi-IE retention is also recommended of the clause which requires the Court In fixing wages to take into account, in addition to the standard of

living, the economic a\l financial conditions of the industry concerned and also of trade and industry generally in the Dominion.

“This report will shake my confidence in all Committee work in the House, at any rate under Reform Government,” said Mr. E. J. Howard, Christchurch South. He alleged that the committee was loaded, and that manoeuvring went on behind its badk. Continuing, Mr. Howard said that a Parliamentary Committee should be like a jury, it was not good form for a member of the Labour Bills Committee to send a telegram urging dairy factories to pass resolutions in favour of the Bill. If an unbiassed jury heard the evidence, it would hold that It was overwhelmingly against the Bill.

“There is no relief for the farmer in this Billi,” said Mr. Howard. “It is only a make-believe. There is no relief for factories, I admit. The farmer is not under awards at the present time. In its amended form, the Bill is worse than it was when it was sent to the Committee.”

Organised labour was largely a product of tfre law, said Mr. W. E. Parry, Auckland Central, and it was too late for them to stand for the abolition of a legal institution that gave them birth. The fault Mr. Parry had to find with the Arbitration system was that it had never developed. It would be far better if the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister would call together the workers and employers in a conference for the-purpose of moulding a form of organisation that would be at least reasonable to those interested, and at the same time be compatible with living conditions. “FOOLING THE FARMERS” “Just another Reform method of fooling the farmers for the purpose of securing their support at the next election,” was the view of Mr. 11. T. Armstrong, Christchurch East. “It is the most hypocritical piece of legislation ever introduced into this House.” Mr. Speaker: The lion, member must withdraw. Mr. Armstrong: I will withdraw, Mr. Speaker, but there are no words in the English language strong enough to describe a Bill of this kind. “This is a. betrayal of the people who voted Reform at the last general election,” declared Mr. Armstrong. “If there is one section of the community which stood for arbitration in season and out of season, it is the Reform Party. They went to the poll determined to uphold the arbitration system at any cost. They have paid armies of special constables armed with pistols and clubs to enforce the arbitration system. Yet, here is a Bill before the House that is the thin end of the wedge to destroy the system altogether. The I.W.W.’s in New Zealand will welcome this Bill, and will be pleased to see the arbitration system destroyed.” Mr. W. J. Jordan, Manukau, wanted to know w-hy it was that, though .a farmers’ party had been in power Cor

16 years, the farmers’ position had got worse and worse. It was not because of the wages trouble, no matter how much the Reform Party said it was. Nothing was said about high rates of interest. Financial institutions wer" paying 12 to 15 per cent, on watered stock. The time must come when the Whitley Council system would be adopted in this country, and in every civilised country. The suggestion that the Bill should be held over for a conference between employers and employees found a strong supporter in Mr. G. W. Forbes, Leader of the National Party, who hoped that even at this stage the Government would provide an opportunity for seeing whether an agreement could be come to. Mr. Howard: The caucus would not let the Minister do that. Mr. T. M. Wilford, Hutt, regretted that clauses 2 to 10 had been dropped. The Minister: Those clauses are kept for a conference. DOGGED OPPOSITION The Prime Minister, the Right. Hon. J. ,G. Coates, moved the suspension of Standing Orders so that the Bill could be discussed during the evening session. Mr. Coates’s motion met with dogged , opposition from Labour members. Mr. H. E. Holland said that nobody knew where the Bill came from or who had asked for it. It had not a friend in the world. Even Sir Joseph Ward, who had listened impassively to the one-sided debate throughout the afternoon, was provoked to rise and ask tor an explanation as to what was wanted. Everybody appeared to bo against the Bill, and there was obviously a tangle about the whole thing. Did the Minister intend to drive it through the House against the will of everyone, including wage-earners and employers? Complaints were made by interjection from the Government side of the House about the delay in ending the session, but Mr. E. J. Howard, Christchurch South, preferred to suggest that pressure had been brought to bear upon Mr. Coates to bring this on, so that the Licensing Bill need not come forward again for discussion by the House.

The Hon. W. Nosworthy replied to Labour, and said that the Minister had not had a chance to reply, so numerous were the speakers. Mr. J. A. Lee, Auckland East: Is the

Bill that has come back his infant? Mr. Nosworthy: It is still his infant, even if it has* lost an arm. Mr. H. E. Holland: It has lost its head.

Mr. Lee: It has been shell-shocked. Mr. W. E 3. Parry, Auckland Central: The Minister has lost the power of speech. Mr. Lee: The Government has lost its head. Speaker: Order! Order! Mr. Howard: The Prime Minister, instead of being the leader of the House, is the follower this time. Discussion was carried on until 10.25 p.m., when Mr. Coates's motion was carried on a division by 53 votes to 14. Sir John Luke then replied very briefly, and the report of the Committee was tabled. The Bill was read a second time pro forma, and was set down for committal at the next sitting.