SLOW PROGRESS.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20498, 17 March 1932, Page 11

SLOW PROGRESS.

THE ARBITRATION BILL.

APPOINTMENT OF CONCILIATION COMMISSIONERS. (press association telegram.) WELLINGTON, March 16. In the House of Representatives today Mr F. Jones (Lab., Dunedin South) asked the Hon. A. Hamilton whether attention had been drawn to a statement that at the meeting of the Dunedin manufacturers the trend of the discussion showed clearly that a large number of manufacturers were distinctly opposed to any legislation that would have the effect of abolishing- the Arbitration Court. Mr Hamilton said the Bill before the House would riot result in the abolition of the Court. Labour members: Nonsense. Short Title Passed. Consideration of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill in Committee was then resumed. The discussion on the short title was continued till 5.15 p.m., when the Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes moved that the question be put. Mr H. E. Holland, Leader of the Opposition, pointed out that the Minister for Labour had spoken on three occasions, while a number of Labour members had spoken only once. The Chairman of Committees, Mr S. G. Smith, said that five hours had been spent on the short title. He was satisfied that the rights of members had not been infringed. The closuro was applied by 43 votes to 23. Mr F. W. Schramm (Lab., Auckland East) moved an amendment to the short title to provide that the measure should not come into operation until January Ist, 1936. This was defeated by 44 votes to 30, and on a subsequent division the short title was retained by 42 votes to 31, Mr 11. Atmore, Mr J. Connolly, Mr W, W. Massey, Mr H. M. Rusliworth, Mr A. M. Samuel, Mr A. J. Stallworthy, Mr C. A. Wilkinson, and Mr R. A. Wright voting with Labour against the clause. Amendment Introduced. An amendment to the Bill was introduced by Governor-General's Message. Mr Hamilton said it simply gave the Government power by Order-in-Council to appoint one or two additional Conciliation Commissioners for a term not exceeding one year. The present Act was somewhat rigid, and it was considered that tHe amendment would enable the measure to act more smoothly. Labour members expressed opposition to this proposal. Mr H. T. Armstrong (Lab., Christchurch East) suggested tliat the reason for it was that the Employers' Federation was not quite satisfied with the present Conciliation Commissioners, and ho believed that no new appointment would bo made-unless it was approved by *tlm Federation. He predicted that there would not be, more work for the Conciliation Commissioners, as the Minister seemed to imagine. There would be less, because unions would not waste their time going before the commissioners when they realised that the whole thing was a farce. . , The introduction of the amendment was still being debated when the House rose at midnight.