LIVELY SESSION.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 91, 17 April 1936, Page 5

LIVELY SESSION.

N.S.W. PARLIAMENT.

A CONTENTIOUS MEASURE. TRANSPORT UNION'S RIGHTS. (Prom Our Own Correspondent.) SYDNEY, April 8. After the usual "Easter rush," marked by late hours, free use of the "gag" and great efforts on the part of the Government to force through an impossibly large number of bills in an incredibly short time, the session of our State Parliament has closed, and our legislators are relieved of their arduous duties till April 21. The last week was punctuated by frequent, though futile attempts on the part of the Labour Opposition to obstruct progress, and even some loyal U.A.P. party members confessed alarm at the constant appeal to the "gag" and the -frequent suspension of standing orders.

Wlien the Milk Investigation Bill and the Wheat Growers' Relief Bill were forced through at 1 a.m. by these means, Mr. Lee (U.A.P.) solemnly warned the House that it was destroying its own rights and privileges. Naturally, under such heavy pressure, tempers had been seriously frayed, and earlier in the week Mr. R. Reid, the U.A.P. member for Manly, who is always ready for a fight, had referred to Mr. Lee (a U.A.P. comrade) as a "damned skunk" and had advised Mr. Gorman (Labour member for Annandale) to "go to hell!" These little diversions, however, were merely incidental to the general course of business, and they did not prevent the Government from getting its way. It should be noted, however, that when Ministers were forcing the Companies Bill through—73 clauses and 8 amendments after midnight on the eve of All Fools Day"—their majority was at one stage cut down to one vote, and only the constant use of the guillotine saved them. On a previous occasion Mr. Lang had succeeded in getting within two 7otes of victory <y*er an amendment

designed to prevent transport officials from dismissing their subordinates orally, without giving notice in writing. Opinions Divided. It is significant that when the transport services are under discussion the House is always divided against itself. The transport unions are the most powerful industrial organisations in Australia, and their influence manifested itself clearly during the last few days of the session when the Railways and Transport Amending Bill was submitted. There is no doubt that a great inany of the proposals embodied in the bill need careful consideration, and though Mr. Bruxner, who as Minister of Transport is in charge of the bill, has assured the House and the country that it is really a clarifying and consolidating measure, even some of the Government supporters regard it with a little doubt and anxiety. ! Naturally Mr. Lang made the best of this opportunity, and denounced the bill in his most vehement and flamboyant fashion as disclosing "three of the ugliest features that can possibly be associated with law-making—retrospection, repudiation and confiscation." He warned the people in general and the transport i service in particular that if the bid. became law it would take away from] Government employees rights to which they are entitled by contract and by the lav of the land, and that it would deprive them of privileges which they have enjoyed undisturbed for the past 20 years. Mr. Lloyd Ross, the secretary of the A.R.U., rather neatly pointed out that if, as Mr. Bruxner had said, the bill will save the State £100,000, then it will cost the transport workers £100,000. The "Labour Daily" followed Mr. Lang's lead with a truly vitriolic outburst on "classdrunk madness," in which it charged the Ministers with "going berserk" and generally "wrecking every recognised tradition of constitutional government" in its determination to rob the transport employees of their legal rights. Mr. Lang Balked. All this fire and fury naturally worked the transport services up to a high pitch of agitation, and as the A.R.U. in particular is vehemently anti-Nationalist, it was not long before their hostility made itself felt. Mr. Lang moved "that Mr. Clive Evatt, K.C., counsel for the Government transport unions, representing 50,000 employees, should heard at tho

Bar of the House, so that he might state objections to the bill." The proposal was rejected—though Mr. Lang could quote precedents in its favour, and he was supported by several U.A.P. members —and Mr. Abram Lancia, solicitor for the unions, then wrote to the "Sydney Morning Herald" dissecting the bill in detail, and drawing attention to a number of hardships which it might inflict upon the employees. So formidable was this attack that Mr. Bruxner thought it necessary to reply through the newspapers, Then the Railway and Tramway Officers' Association plunged into the fray, and its secretary, Mr. R. Winsor, an old and experienced campaigner, publicly charged Mr. Bruxner with refusing to receive a deputation from the transport workers to discuss the bill. So Mr. Bruxner was forced to write to the papers again, replying to Mr. Winsor, and pointing out that in the first place the matter had been taken up by Mr. Lang, who initiated that "political action" which Mr. Winsor condemned, and that in the second place the case for the transport workers had been remitted to the lawyers, and it was only after these expedients had failed that Mr. Winsor and his friends began to talk about a deputation, which was first brought under Mr. Bruxner's notice by telephone, when he was speaking in the House, and could not be interrupted. On the whole Mr. Bruxner got out of his difliciitlies fairly well, and he completely and effectively answered Mr. Winsor. However, there are features about the bill that certainly need elucidation, and in the case of a measure so complicated and lending itself so easily to distortion and misrepresentation, it certainly seems unfortunate that the Government could not have chosen a more convenient time to introduce the measure, and did not arrange circumstances so as to allow a full and unrestricted discussion.