PARLIAMENT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 2993, 18 September 1908, Page 5

PARLIAMENT.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. (By Telegraph—Abridged from Press Association Report.) WELLINGTON September 17. The Legislative Council met at 2.30 o'clock. The Attorney-General in moving the second reading of the Wellington and Manawatu Railway Purchase Bill, said that the Premier made a creditable bargain with the owners of the line, which was also satisfacory tojthe people of the Dominion. He explained the provisions of the Bill, which have already been fully reported when bofoie the House. The Hon. T. K. Mac Donald complimented the Attorney-General on the satisfactory arrangements thd Government had made. The Hons. McArdle, Beehar, Loughnan, Paul, and Jones also complimented the Government. The Council adjourned at 4.55 o'clock. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. On the House meeting at * 2.30 o'clock the interrupted uebate on the motion to go into Committee on the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Bill was resumed by Mr T. H. Davey, who contended that the Arbitration Act had been of great benefit to the workers. A great deal of the striking which had taken place had been engineered by loreign malcontents. He contended that no Court should have power to over-rule any clause Or express the intention o£ Parliament. As to the failure of the Court to make an award in the farm labourers' dispute that was derogatory to the dignity of the Court. An award should have been made. Mr J. T. M. Hornsby said that it would be better noc to have a lawyer president of the Arbitration Court. The Trade Unionists had suffered in the past by legal technicalities. It would be muchbetter if a dispute were decided on the equity of good conscience. He thought unionists should have the power to classify themselves. Classification was indespensible, the pre bent system being utterly unfair to superior workmen. Mr J. F. Arnold said that Mr Hornsby's suggestion for classification would result in chaos. If a superior workmen did not get a fair show that was the fault of the employers and not of the Court. Mr T. M. Wilford contended that the Conciliation Board had'been an utter failure. The real function had been in the happy words of a critic "to stir up strife." .There should be no permanent Conciliation Commissioners as proposed, but a Conciliation Board of experts representing both sides should be immediately called into being whenever a dispute occurred. On the House resuming at 7.30 o'clock, the debate was continued by Mr C. Lewi?, who condemned the attempt to solve the labour problem by compulsory arbitration. It was, he said, akin to an endeavour to make water flow up hill. Moreover, when labour was dissatisfied with an award, what happened? If a union was strong enough to influence the elections the Government of the day at its bidding ..pBS??d legislation . to override the Court's a'wiifrci. It haf frequently been done for the unions, but never for the employers, and that fact h?d shattered his fpith in the impartiality of thosewho had administered the system and prevented him from assessing at any high value the proclamations of the integrity of the law, must be held up from the platfutm by members of the Government. This interference with the Court meant the worst features of the Anerict..' 4 system were creeping into our achnirffolration. Mr C. H. Izard congratulated the Labour Bilh Committee on the work it had done by this measure, which they had greatly improved. He contended that the Arbitiation Act had in a large measure prevented strikes and had generally improved the condition of the worker. He believed in the principle of conciliation. Mr F. R. Flatman generally supported the Bill, but thought the number of commissioners proposed quite inadequate. Mr C. E. Major generally supported the principle of arbitration, and alleged that the condition of the workers had been greatly improved since 1594. Every honest worker recognised this was a good Bill. Mr J. A. Hanan supported the Bill, but thought the parties concerned should appoint the Chairman of the Conciliation Councils instead of the Government appointing permanent! officials. . j The Hon. J. A. Millar, in reply, said that it could not possibly be asserted that the Act had been a failure.