ARBITRATION BILL.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 16987, 9 November 1920, Page 6

ARBITRATION BILL.

: . * j LABOUR OPPOSITION TO ! CLAUSE 3. j (ADJUDGED FKESS ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.) WELLINGTON, November 8. In the House of Representatives today Mr S. G. Smith resumed the debate on the motion to tablo tho Labour Bills' Committee report on tho Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act Amendment Bill (No. 2). Hβ urged that clause 3 should .be dropped or modified as by admitting third parties to a dispute there would bo grave danger of undermining tho effectiveness ol the Arbitration Act. Mr Savago said he considered that clause 3 was just as objectionable as clause 4 which the Minister had agreed to drop. It would simply kill the Arbitration Court. It would be interesting to know wiio was the author of this Bill. Ho would make a sporting ofier and name tiio Bill "ihe Pryor ±>lot." William Hemes: "lou are. wrong: Hβ wrote to mo against tho isnl. .mv Howard: "ie«s, against clause 4; that was all." He reieneU to tne lormation of guilds, which he oeclared were sometimes simply bogus unions. Clause » gave such guncis all privileges under tho Act, but relieved them of penalties for breaches of the Act. It simply amounted to this: "That the proposers of clause 3 designed it to ena'ble agreements to bo broken at will when it suited employers. Hβ declared that Labour would accept tnc challenge. By this little clause employers could throw their caps into the ring and say to Labour: "If you are ready for ago come on." Well, Labour would be ready for a ''go" if they wanted one. The Labour members would oppose tho clause by every means. I The Hon. J. A. Ranansaid if clause 3 passed it would result in tanning industrial troubles. Mr iveilett said thousands of moderate unionists would look at clause 3 witn dismay. It would deprive them of the value of the Arbitration Act and drive ihom to a fight with extreme labour. He advised the Government to with-* draw the clause. At this stage the debate was interrupted to enable the Finance Bill to ba brought down. Mr Eraser declared that the Bill was one of the most sinister ho had seen ■ for a long time. It contained a continuance of the principle which sprang ! up at the time or the last great strike. 1 Ho moved that tho 81l bo referred back to tho Labour Bills Committee. He regretted that the Labour Party was compelled at this late hour of the session to oppose this Bill, but they were compelled to do so, beeauso they Le- 1 lievod that the Bill was not introduced' to aid industrial unions, but to smash every existing vestige of unionism in the country. Tho amendment was secondod by Mr Holland, who contended that if the i Bill were passed into law, it would simply throw the country into a vortex of industrial strife, because unionists wero not going to see all their long years of effort destroyed by this Bill. 'Clause 3 would inevitably deetroy in- ' dustrial unions. Tho Government might carry the Bill by the force of their majority, but they could not carry it; into effect. | Sir William Herries said he would say frankly tliat clause 3 was intended to help guilds, and it had been framed '■■ ut tho suggestion of Mr Justice Stringer, who thought guilds should I .have a standing in the Arbitration j Court. I-To proposed to drop clause 4, j and anieiuT clause 3 in such a way as to I give certain bodies, if they thought i they wero going to be injured, the right to come before the Court and say how they might bo affected by ati award of the Court. The new clause i did not register these guilds, nor did it givo them an award. It would simply enable them to be heard before the Court.. The Labour Party wanted to j know why guilds should not register as unions Tinder the Arbitration Act. The Minister replied that ho would not force them to do that, if they did not j wn-nt to He wanted to pass the clause, and would bo prepared to sit up several nights to get it. Hβ thought favour- : ably of the suggestion that the Arbi- j tra'tion Court should bo composed ol < two representatives of industries con- ■ corned in a dispute, but he was not prepared to alter tho whole constitu-, tion of the Court this session. j After midnight the debate was ca><ried on by Messrs R. W. Smith, I ysnar, i and Potter, who supported tho Bill, and ] by Messrs Sullivan, Howard, McCombs ■ and Parry, who opposed it. j The debate wns still in progress when ! the Telegraph Office closed at 2 a.m.