ANOTHER STONEWALL

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 217, 2 December 1927, Page 12

ANOTHER STONEWALL

Deadlock on Arbitration MR. COATES AGREES TO CONFERENCE THE SEX'S Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, To-day. EVERY entreaty of the Minister of Labour, the Hon. G. J. Anderson, to the House of Representatives to facilitate the passage through committee of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Bill fell on deaf ears so far as the members of the Labour Party were concerned, and opportunity was taken on every clause to prolong the journey of the measure to the Statute Book. After one o’clock the Prime Minister made a proposal to allow the short title of the Bill through so that a conference could be held in the morning. This was not acceptable to opponents of the Bill because this clause was the only one that permitted discussion upon the general principles of the Bill. Eventually Mr. Coates agreed to allow progress to be reported and a conference is to be held to-day.

| THE House resumed the committee debate at the stage where a break was made last week, the Bill having been sent into the committee, but no progress on it having been made. The Minister of Labour, the Hon. G. J. Anderson, asked the House to consider the Bill purely from a non-party standpoint and debate the clauses free from what he called the “individual party games,” and without the usual destructive methods. He asked members to consider the good of the coun- ; try before party affairs when dealing with the clauses which dealt with the primary industry. It had been forced upon the Government by almost every farmers’ organisation in the country that the operation of the Arbitration Court affected their business prejudicially because they could not pass on any imposition which the Court might inflict upon them. It had been said that this Bill was brought forward to undermine the industrial legislation of New Zealand. He gave that an emphatic denial. It was an attempt to meet a difficult position. The Government was satisfied, and everyone would agree, that the time when any employer could unjustly treat his employee was -gone. The community will not tolerate it. Mr. Jordan: Are you trying to get that back? Mr. Anderson: I am not talking frivolously. I want the House to understand that so far as I am concerned I do not want to divest myself of one iota of responsibility, and the Government does not want to shed its responsibility. This question affects every unit of the community. “The Minister would have been on good ground if the Reform Party had held no caucus,” said the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. IT. E. Holland). “But we know that the Bill has been made a party question already, and we know what takes place in a Reform Party caucus.” Reform members: Oh! What? Demand for Conference Mr. IT. E. Holland, Leader of the Opposition, said that the only way to preserve some 'degree of harmony and save the possibility of trouble would be to have a conference. He admitted that there was a lot to be gained by a good discussion of the question in the House, but after a. discussion the Minister should withdraw the Bill, or hold it over until next session, and in the meantime should call together the parties directly concerned. By that means he would get much further than lie could possibly do if he drove the Bill right through the House. What would happen if the a,ward covering the sheepfarmers disappeared? asked Mr. Holland. It would mean that employees who had grievances could have recourse'only to the strike, and employers only to the lockout. Mr. G. W. Forbes (Leader of the National Party) said that a conference was absolutely necessary. It must be recognised that the workers had rights and those rights must be considered by any Government. The Bill provided that no alteration should take place till July 31, 1928, when Parliament would have been in session nearly a month, so there was no need for hastily putting the legislation on the Statute Book. 4, Tt . eviden t that opposition to xne Bill in its present form was not confined to members of the Labour Party, Government members assisting in the advocacy for a conference on the subject of arbitration before the existing legislation was altered. “Let the Bill drop now and talk it over later” was their plea. Labour made no secret of its endeavour to block the progress of the Bill, and members of the Opposition talked their full time on the first clause

j which allows general discussion on the Fight Goes On J i So far as the galleries were conI c orned interest was more or less lack- . ! ing because of the debate on the - Licensing Bill, which was taking place >• in the. Legislative Council. Much was heard of arbitration and its effect upon 1 unemployment. Party personalities of 1 a mild character were exchanged, and . the plea of Mr. Anderson to allow the „ short title to go through was entirely - ignored. 2 Mr. Holland acknowledged that the I Minister had laid the foundation for an t r amicable settlement of the dispute, but he still pressed for a conference. There was a possibility of a conference be- _ tween sheep-farmers, wheat-farmers, dairy-farmers and wager workers, and t the F-ill should be dropped to allow 3 conciliation. ■j Mr. Coates made an emphatic speech £ in support of the farming industry, . and assured the House that, while he -> had a say nothing would be done by the Government to reduce the wages 3 of workers, and the first consideration would be their conditions and welfare. ’ Members had to look past the mere j maintenance of a good standard of living, however, and consider the prost perity of the country through the operations of the primary industries. v The last thing in the world that was ’ desired was strikes, and the arbitration ' system was designed to prevent them. % The Arbitration Court was never in- " tended to go to such lengths as it had in respect to farmers, for the court ' 1 never considered the fluctuation in ■ | prices of produce when making an I award to govern the conditions of j i those engaged in production. I I A Thin House j j The House was a very thin one as 5. the night dragged on, very few mem- , bers remaining to listen to the futile stonewall. It was nearly one o’clock when Mr. Coates rose to make a suggestion to facilitate the progress of the Bill. ITe realised that it was too much to expect those opposed to the Bill to allow it to go on to the statute against . their principles. He asked the House , to agree to pass the Bill in its present i form with the definite understanding : i that it should not operate till Parliav j ment had had an opportunity of conj sidering it next session. ; i Air. H. T. Armstrong: What is the , | use of passing it. , Mr. Coates: It is in the light of a compromise. This Bill was not . brought down for a joke. We could sit ' I here for goodness knows how long. r \ Mr. J. A. Lee: The longer it goes j on the more support you lose. I ! Mr. Coates: jN T ever mind about that - we will take the responsibility for that. ' The more we lose the better will it suit 1 my honourable and gallant friend. | Air. H. E. Holland: If this goes to the Statute Book it will have to be rej pealed. Will you report progress and ! allow a committee of all concerned in - the House to meet in the morning and ; in the recess, and then we can bring 5 this on again. It would be discussed I in the same spirit as this debate. 1 Air. Coates: Well let us think it over I during the night, but let us pass the l short title of the Bill first. , Labour would not agree to this. Air. Holland said that his party - would undertake to submit definite proposals in the morning. ► Air. Coates: Well, there are others : ! also. A certain section have asked for * j tliis Bill and the other section are as ; keenly oposed to it. On this side of ) the House there is a definite and fer- • vent body of opinion that this Bill is l to go through. ; ; Mr. Coates eventually agreed to report progress so that a conference ■ could be held among the parties coni cerned in the morning. Progress was i reported at 1.30 a.m., and the House ? adjourned at 1.40 till 11 a.m. to-day.