ARBITRATION BILE

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20499, 18 March 1932, Page 11

ARBITRATION BILE

DELETION OF EXEMPTION? CLAUSE. SLOW PROGRESS WITH MEASURE - (PRESS ASSOCIATION" TELFGHAIt.) WELLINGTON, March IT. On the motion of the Prime Minister in the House of Eepresentatives to-day; urgency was, by 37 votes to 26, ac-i ordered the passage of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amend" ment Bill. - Labour members continued to discuss the' amendment brought down by Governor-General's Message. The formal motion to refer the message to the Committee was adopted by 41 votos to 26. Replying in Committee to the Labour speeches, the Hon. A. said the number of additional Conciliation Commissioners that would be appointed would depend upon the demands. It had been said there would be no cases for the Conciliation Council and in that case there would be no appointments. However, he personally anticipated that there would be a largo number of cases. Unpleasant suggestions had been made that the object of tho amendment was to find positions for the Government's friends. That was not so. In fact, the only applications so far received were from trade union secretaries. , Mr H. E. Holland, Leader of tho Opposition: Who are these tra'de union, secretaries? Mr Hamilton: That is not a fair question. Continuing, th.e Minister said Commissioners would be appointed until tlieir work was done and vrould be paid two or three guineas per day. It might not be necessary to employ them for more than a few days. It had been said that the amendment would' result in additional expense, but this was not so. If additional Commissioners were appointed under the existing legislation they could not be engaged for less than three years. It would therefore be apparent that .the amendment would reduce the expenditure. - \ Information Wanted. Mr Holland submitted that the Minister was not entitled to say that the applications ,so far received for positions as Conciliation Commissioners were from trade union secretaries unless he was prepared to give the Souse 1 full information. He could not see how any union secretary could have-made application, because applications had not been called for. It would seem that the' Minister was endeavouring to work a heavy jest on the Chamber. Mr Holland said he would suggest that the Minister had not received any application from any bona fide trade union secretary. If- he had it would mean that something improper had been done in the direction of notifying that certain positions would, be available if the Bill passed. The-position was that Mr Hamilton had either done something he should not have done, or that be had made a statement to the Committee that was not based on fact. No responsible Minister was entitled! to make s statement of that kind unless he was, prepared to give the House the facts. . He invited the Minister to give the name of a union secretary who had made application for a position as Conciliation Commissioner under the terms of the Governor-General's Message tofore the Committee.. Cloeure Applied. The Rt. Hon. G,- W. Forbes said the information for which Mr Holland w«5 asking, was confidential. as Prime Minister, had received ~ quite a number of applications with respect' to various positions in the Government, and he regarded them as confidential. The'clause to which the amendment referred had yet to come before the House. He considered that it had been subjected to lengthy obstruction at the present stage, and therefore moved thkt the question bo put. < , The motion was adopted by 48 votes to 23, and- on a further division the , Committee recommended by 40 votes to 27, that provision be made in accordance with the Message. The amendment was then reported to' the House and Labour members' thereupon debated the question, "That the House agree to the Committee 's report" The closure was again applied prior to the 9.30 adjournment; and the House agreed to the report .by 44 votes to 27. . . Continuing their - opposition, Labour members debated.the 'last stage of the formalities" in connexion with the in- 1 .troduction of the amendment until *t 10.30 the closure was applied for the third time- during-the evening. • The House agreed, by 42 votes to 28, to refer the amendment to the Cotnmittee on the Bill, and it then became . possible to resume consideration of the Bill itself in Committee. 4 > A Clause Withdrawn. Amid applause and vigorous ''Hear, hears!" from the Labour benches, the Minister's intention was annpunced to withdraw . the clause which empowered the Government by Order-ih-Council to exclude specified industries or persons from the operations jof the principal Act. ' . - No objection to this course was Taised and the clause was thereupon withdrawn. Exception . was taken by Opposition members ta the clause increasing the maximum number of assessors on the Conciliation Council, it being contended that the. more assessors appointed the more difficult it would be to reach agreement. The closure was applied after twenty minutes' discussion, and the clause was adopted by 38 votes to 24. There was an hour's discussion before the closure was applied in connexion with the next clause, which permits evidence to be taken from persons out-' side the industries concerned in disputes. c - The clause vyns adopted. A - Labour Protest. Mr P. Fraser (Lab., Wellington Central} .moved that the Chairmanof Committees should leave the chair as a protest against the method of rushiii ft the business through the House. Mr Forbes said the patience of members had been fully tested and the House had had ample opportunity to discuss the last clause, to which the closure had been applied, but members of the Opposition had preferred to speak on everything else. The debate had been reaching the tedious repeti-, tion stage, and members felt that the business of Parliament was being depreciated by what was going on. The closure was applied to Ms Fraser's motion, which was defeated, and the Committee proceeded to deal with the remaining clauses of the Bill. - (Left sitting.)