STILL IN SUSPENSE

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 210, 24 November 1927, Page 16

STILL IN SUSPENSE

Fate of Arbitration Bill COMMITTED AFTER LONG DEBATE (TEE SUN’S Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, To-day. THE House of Representatives having sat until after halfpast three this morning', carried a motion for the committal of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill, and then decided to report progress with leave to sit again. The Minister, the Hon. G. J. Anderson, intimated that he intended to hav% a conference, during the recess, on the constitution of the Court.

The Prime Minister could not say definitely .whether he would go on with the committee stage of the Bill to-day.

“rpHE only way in which New Zealand can secure industrial peace is by the use of any amount of common sense, an ingredient that has been lacktng Tn negotiations during the past couple of years.” This is the opinion of Mr. Anderson, who considers that the Arbitration Amendment Bill has done more to bring worker and employer together than anything else accomplished in the history of the country. He said in the House of Representatives this evening that even if nothing further were done the introduction of the Bill would have served a useful purpose.

All*. Anderson in moving to have the Bill committed, referred in a light vein to the trouble which the Bill had caused throughout the country. ‘‘lt has driven capital and labour into one camp,” he said. ‘‘They are now supping together and reasoning together in a manner which has never been equalled in this country.” Mr. W. E. Parry, Auckland Central: Are you sorry? Mr. Anderson; If T have done no more than bringing * these august bodies together the production of this Bill has been thoroughly justified. Good Effect of Battles The speeches of Opposition members had revealed a spirit of rapprochement existing between the interests concerned, he continued. They showed either that a good effect had been produced or that former battles of Labour members liad been mere, sliam-fights. Mr. H. T. Armstrong, Christchurch Bast: Tell us something about, the Bill. Mr. Anderson: I will tell you all about it. I was pleased with many of the remarks I heard last night. Mr. Anderson said that he agreed that larger unions did not care twopence whether the court remained or not, and smaller unions were concerned but when the large institutions, like the Alliance of Labour, were found changing views, it showed that they were advancing with the times, and there was hope for them in the future. Neither party interested could now turn round and rail the court as they had during the past two or three years.

There had been requests for him to call a conference of employers and .■rkers, hut what was there to place before such a conference? Each had a different viewpoint, and each differed regarding the court from a separate point. When employees refrained from objecting the employers began. Mr. Anderson was referring to the nominated members of the court and deprecating wrangles which occurred, when Mr. P. Fraser, Wellington Centra], called: “That is a threat.” Mr. Anderson: It is not a threat. This Bill was brought down as a solution of a difficulty which is obvious, and has been for years. Mr. Fraser: So you uttered a threat. Mr. Anderson: I am not in the habit of uttering threats, and you know it. The hon. gentleman is using his position in the House to make a statement which has no accuracy in it. I know there have been quite unseemly wrangles in this great court, and this should not he.

Mr. Parry: That is not the only place where there are wrangles. Mr. R. McKean, Wellington South, claimed that none of the workers' organisations asked for an alteration in the constitution of the Arbitration Court. Criticism Continues It was clear that members were prepared to spend a great deal of time in discussing the merits of the Bill, strong criticism, largely upon the lines of previous speeches, coming from Opposition benches. Mr. W. D. Lysnar, Gisborne, asked that the clauses relating to farmers should be allowed to go through, and if any reason for suspension arose the House would meet before the date upon which the clause would operate July 31 next year. Mr. W. A. Veiteh. Wanganui, levelled a general criticism at the Government’s effort to solve the industrial problem. He gave the credit for New Zealar>'’~ arbitration system to the John Ballanee Government, in the political long ago. He considered that a reduction of 1 per cent, in the rate of interest paid by farming and commercial interests would contribute a hundredfold more to the prosperity of the country than ail)'thing that might he dope to lower wages. Low wages were not the road to prosperity. The Hon. O. .T. Hawken, Minister of Agriculture, said that there was a strong feeling among the primary producers that the Arbitration Court had led to decreased efficiency and lowered production, thus lessening the chance of increase of wages to workers and consequently decreasing the goodwill between employer and employee. Mr. D. G. Sullivan, Avon, called the Bill “wrecking legislation.” and when he saw Mr. Anderson reclining in his bench twitted him with “fiddling while Rome burned.” “Oh, no I’m not,” exclaimed Mr. Anderson, sitting up suddenly and rubbing his eyes. Mr. Sullivan asked what guarantee they had that the Government would not respond to the demands of other industries just as they had to that of the farming industry, tor exemption from awards.

Mr. J. Lee Martin, Raglan, said that he had been urged by the Waikato dairymen to oppose any exemption of the dairy industry. The Hon. A. D. McLeod. Minister of Lands, declared that there had been no desire among the sheep-owners to reduce the shearers' wages, and they did not hope or think that as a result of the Bill wages would be reduced. The debate dragged on for several hours, while Labour members put their views on record until at 3.15 a.m. Mr. Fraser moved that in view of the evidence given before the Labour Bills Committee the Bill should not be al-

lowed to proceed, but that its whole subject matter should be referred to a conference representative of the organised workers, employers, and farmers of the Dominion, to be convened by the Government for consideration and report to the House. Sir John Luke said that of 42 witnesses before the committee 22 were in favour of the present la’w and 20 favoured a change or the exemption of farmers. It was felt that in view of the narrow margin the question should be settled in the House. Mr. Fraser’s motion was defeated on a division by 45 votes to 12. The Minister said that in any case he intended to have a conference during the recess about the constitution of the court. The motion for the committal of the Bill was carried by 45 votes to 12, and on going into committee Mr. Anderson moved to report progress, with leave to sit again. In reply to Mr. H. E. Holland, Mr. Coates said that he preferred not to say until Thursday whether he would go on with the committee stage of the Bill that day. The House rose at 3.55 a.m.

DESPITE PRUNINGS BILL STILL DISPLEASES I ALL SIDES CRITICAL Not all the evidence from both sides which the Labour Bills Committee has had poured in upon it has enabled it to produce an Arbitration Amendment Sill satisfactory to both sides. ■VTOBODY seems entirely satisfied with the Bill as reported back to the House with various prunings effected. Both Labour leaders and the commercial chiefs have had disappointments. The most drastic criticism came from Mr. T. Bloodworth, who said briefly: “The Government is past redemption, and further comment is useless. The affirmation of the provision taking away of the courts’ jurisdiction over the farming industry and over piecework, amounts to a vote of noconfidence by the Government in the Court of Arbitration.” CHAMBER OF COMMERCE VIEW The president of the Chamber of Commerce, Mr. A. G. Lunn, said: “It is regrettable that the proposal to give the Minister of Labour power to call compulsory conferences to avoid strikes and lock-outs has been deleted. “The retention of the present constitution of the court should have had further discussion in the House with a view to modification of the personnel to embody the assistance of at j least one trained economist.’ EXEMPTION OF FARMERS Mr. James Bocldie, chairman of directors of the Farmers’ TradingCompany, who has wide farming experience, said that it would have been impossible to do anything but exempt the farming industry. The farmer had to contend with the elements, which did not respect his intentions, and he should be free from labour restrictions.

The retention of the exemption granted to the farmers was considered a “very dangerous precedent’ by Mr. Gavin Stove, secretary of the New Zealand Workers’ Union. He said that no industry should be allowed exemption from the Arbitration Court, no more than an individual was allowed to be exempt from the provisions of the court of justice. He said that as the farm workers were denied the court they should be free from the restrictions on strikes and “other tactics of bargaining with the employers.”