Workers’ Holidays

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1014, 3 July 1930, Page 11

Workers’ Holidays

SPIRITED DEBATE IN THE HOUSE THE SEX'S Parliamentary Reporter WELLINGTON, Wednesday. CONSIDERABLE discussion developed in the House of Representatives this afternoon on the subject of the Workers’ Annual Leave Bill, which was introduced by Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Labour —Avon) and read a first time, the second reading being set down for July IG. Mr. Sullivan s project of 14 days’ leave on full pay each year for all workers was warmly supported by his Labour colleagues and b\ other members. Some members protested against the length of speeches in the debate, and there were some acrimonious passages. Mr. Sullivan deprecated the lack of comment on the measure from the Government benches.

The Bill, Mr. Sullivan said, had been introduced last year, and in the previous session, when it had gone to the second reading after a good deal of discussion. Last year, however, because of its lowly position on the Order Paper, it had not been considered. The measure might well be termed the “Sunshine Bill,” for it would bring health and sunshine into the lives of thousands of workers in the Dominion. It would provide a fortnight’s holiday on full pay for all workers after a year's service. Mr. \V. D. Lysnar (Reform —Gisborne) : How- long? Mr. Sullivan: Not as long as the holiday the honourable member takes when he goes on a trip to England. New Zealand, he continued, had fallen sadly froln the position of being the leader of the world in social legislation. Nowadays the principles contained in the Bill were in force in Austria, Czechoslovakia. Finland, Latvia, Poland, Russia, and Brazil, and among large sections of the workers in Germany, Denmark, Spain, Jugoslavia, and Salvador. Reform Members: Hear, heart

Mr. Sullivan: Yes, that sort of thing is what we always get from the Tory benches. He continued that the International Labour Conference at Geneva had endorsed the principle, and that meant that next year, following on a recommendation from the League of Nations, the Government w-ould have to make up its mind whether or not it would introduce such legislation. It could support this Bill.

Mr. Sullivan had been facing the Reform benches while speaking, and this prompted the Leader of the Opposition, the Right Hon. J. G. Coates, to ask: “Are you speaking to us because you think we are going to be the Government next year?" “I am not concerned with whether the honourable gentlemen are going to be the Government or not,” retorted Mr. Sullivan. “It will take them a very long time to make up the ground they have lost.”

The Bill, he said, had been introduced in the British House of Commons, where it had been supported by members of ail parties, and it was under consideration in France at the present time, where . investigations were being made into the costs. On the score of increased travelling, the Bill should appeal to the Minister of Railways. In 1871 John Lovat introduced in England the wide Bank Holiday, and he had been known by tlio workers of England ever since as “St. John Lovat.” Here was an opportunity for the Prime Minister to become known as “St. George Forbes.” The House laughed. “CONGRATULATIONS”

Mr. M. J. Savage (Labour —Auckland West) warmly supported Mr. Sullivan, and congratulated him on bringing in the Bill a third time. There was everything to be gained, he said, by giving the workers of the country reasonable working conditions. He felt that the Prime Minister would give

Mr. Sullivan's Bill a chance, for the Prime Minister claimed to be a democrat, and so did his party.

Mr. R. McKeen (Labour —Wellington South) said that most awards provided for annual leave, but this was j given by the Arbitration Court, and not bv legislative authority. Mr. W. j. Jordan (Labour —Mannkau) asked the Government to let the; Bill proceed, for its object was to get j the few employers into line with the i majority. It was asking the House to treat the workers as human beings. The speeches now had lasted some time, and Mr. J. S. Fletcher (Grey Lynn) jumped up. "Yesterday, ’ he said, "an appeal was made by the Leader of the Labour Party, Mr. H. E. Holland, for the leaders of the parties to come together and agree on not wasting time off the Address-in-Reply debate. Where is the sincerity of that appeal today?” Mr. McKeen: Are you opposed to I the Bill? Mr. Fletcher: No. Mr. McKeen: Well, sit down. Mr. J. McCombs (Labour —Lyttelton) expressed his surprise at the illmannered. bad-tempered outburst from the member for Grey Lynn. On behalf of the workers of New Zealand he wished to voice his resentment at Mr. Fletcher's outburst. “THAT ACID-DROP” Mr. F. Waite (Reform —Clutha) said that the member for Grey Lynn had natured, bad-tempered outburst tical acid-drop,'’ the member for Lyttelton. He himself was on the side of Mr. Fletcher. The debate was a deliberate waste of time, and he wished to protest. Mr. W. E. Parry (Labour —Auckland Central) joined in the protest against Messrs. Fletcher and Waite. Those members who were opposed to the Bill were opposed to the Interests of the workers. Mr. A. M. Samuel (Reform — Thames) regretted the charges that had been thrown across the House. He thought the Bill most excellent in principle if it could be carried out He appealed to the House not to waste further time. Mr. W. J. Poison (Independent—--1 Stratford) said he was in sympathy ! with the principles of the Bill, but the present was not a propitious time at which to introduce it, seeing that financial conditions were so stringent, and we wanted to get costs down. Mr. Sullivan, replying, expressed disappointment at the'lack of interest shown by the Government benches. He thought there might have been some comment from the Minister of Labour, the Hon. S. G. Smith, or the Prime Minister, the Hon. G. W. Forbes. Reform Ministers had shown keen interest in this Bill two years ago, and had spoken to it. As for Mr. Poison, he was suspected by the workers of New Zealand of wanting to get costs down at the expense of the workers. Mr. Poison: I contradict that! Mr. Sullivan: You will have to do a lot of that before you convince the workers.