A CHALLENGE.

Taranaki Daily News, 9 November 1920, Page 5

A CHALLENGE.

LABOR TO EMPLOYERS,

THREAT AT UNIONISM ALLEGED. By Telegraph—Press Association, Wellington, Last Night. In the House oi' Representatives tonight, Mr. S. G. Smith (Turanaki; resumed the debate on the motion to table the Labor Bills Committee report on the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2). He urged that clause 3 be dropped or modified, an by admitting third parties to disputes there would be grave danger of undermining the effectiveness of the Arbitration Act.

Mr. W. T. Jennings (Waitomo) also opposed clause 3.

Mr. M. J. Savage (Auckland West) eaid it would be interesting to know who was the author of the Bill. He would make a sporting offer and name the Bill as "The Pryor Plot." The Hon. Sir William Herrfes: "You are wrong; he wrote to me againßt the Bill."

Mr. E. J. Howard (Christchureh South): "¥es, against clause 4; that was all."

Mr. Savage referred to the formation of guilds, which, he declared, were sometimes simply bogus unions. Clause 3 gave such guilds all the privileges under the Act, but relieved them of the penalties for breaches of the Act. It simply amounted to this, that the proposers of clause 3 designed it to enable agreements to be broken at will when it suited the employers. He declared that Labor would accept the challenge by this little clause. The employers could throw the cap into the ring and say to Labor, "If you are ready for a go, come on." Well, Labor would be ready for a go if they wanted one. Labor members would oppose the clause by every means. The Hon. J. A. Hanan (Invercargill) said it was necessary for the workers to be united through their unions, and nothing should be done to interfere with union organisation. If clause 3 passed it would result in fanning industrial trouble. The clause was viewed with suspicion, and should be amended or withdrawn.

Mr. E. Kellett (Dunedin North) said that thousands of moderate unionists would loojk at clause 3 with dismay. It would deprive them of the value of the Arbitration Act, and drive them to fight with extreme Labor. He auvV'ed the Government to withdraw the clause. At this stage the debate was interrupted to enable the Finance Bill to be brought down by Governor-General's message.

When the debate was again taken up, Mr. P. Fraser (Wellington Central) declared the Bill was one of the most sinister he had seen for a long time. It contained the continuance cf a principle which sprang up at the time of the last great strike. He moved that the Bill be referred back to flic Labor Bills Committee. He regretted the Labor Party was compelled at this late hour of the session to oppose this Bill, but they were compelled to do. so because they believed the Bill was not introduced to aid industrial unions, but to smash every existing vestige of unionism in the country. The amendment was seconded by Mr. Holland (Bailor), who contended that if the provisions of the Bill were passed into law it would simply hurl the country into the vortex of industrial strife, because unionists were not going to see all their long years of effort destroved by this Bill. Clause 3 would inevitably destroy industrial unions. The Government could carry the Bill by the force of their majority, but they could not carry it into effect.

Sir' William Hemes said Ju> would say frankly that clause 3 was intended to help guilds, and it had been framed at the suggestion of .Tudge Prvjno-er, who thought guilds should have a standing in the Arbitration Court, He proposed to drop clause 4, and amend clause 3 in such a way as to give certain bodies power, if they think they are going to be injured, to come before the Court and say how they may be affected by an award of the Court.

The Minister said he wanted to pass the clause, and he was prepared to sit up several nights to get it. He thought favorably of the suggestion that the Arbitration Court should be composed of two representatives of the industries concerned in a dispute, but he was not prepared to alter the whole constitution of the Court this session. The debate was still in progress when the telegraph office closed at 2 a.m.