I.C. AND A. AMENDMENT ABANDONED

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 100, 25 October 1930, Page 11

I.C. AND A. AMENDMENT ABANDONED

REFORM "STONEWALL" SUCCEEDS \ ———————— LABOUR ATTACK ON GOVERNMENT An unusual position arose in the House of Representatives lain last night wlien, after the Appropriation Bill had been put through the Committee btagc, the Government brought on the Industrial ' • Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill, one of the niOft contentious measures of the session, for second reading. There was '■V' immediate trenchant opposition from the Reform Party, and this took the form of a miniature "stonewall," which was stopped by o Government motion to adjourn the- debate. The Labour Parly described this development as a gross breach of faitli on the part of " the Government, and, on a division being called, voted against the adjournment motion, in which the Government had the support of -. - the official Opposition. Later, Labour speakers bitterly attacked the Government, one member going as far as to say that his party regretted that it had not turned the United Party out earlier in the session.

The first definite indication of strong opposition to the Bill came from the Leader of the Opposition, when he asked the Acting-Prime Minister to state what sessional business yet rcinained to be transacted. "I don't think it is fail- that the Bill should be condemned, before an explanation is given of it," said the Minister of Labour (the Hon. S. G. Smith). Mr. .Coates: "We know what the Bill means." • , Mr. Smiths "There can't possibly. ' fob any objection to it." ; - Mr. Coates: "Wo will definitely ; raise an objection." A PROMISE OIVBN. ' " s!The Leader of the Labour PaTty ■ YMr. H. E. Holland) expressed the hope that the House would have an opportunity of dealing with the Bill on its merits, and not be blocked by any technical objections. Prior to the de- • parture of the Prime Minister for Eng- • land,' Mr. Forbes had given a definite promise' that the Bill would be put through, and since then similar under- ' takings had been made. Mr. Holland said he took it that the Acting-Prime "Minister would honour that promise. The Bill should go through, even if it entailed a sitting of the House nest ?Ve4r Coates said that the measure ' should, have -omo on for its second reading weeks ago. He understood the Acting-Prime Minister was only _ re- - eently made aware of the promise given. Mr. Holland: ."Why not let the promise be honoured?" The 'Minister of Labour said the ■ pleasure was not contentious. It sought onlvto restore to the Arbitration (Court the power it had been exercising ■Sor very many years. There was not one lawyer in New Zealand who could way that the Bill would bring farm labourers under the Court, notwith- • standing what had been, said to the contrary. "Simply propaganda," commented Mr. K. M'Keen (Labour. Wellington ' South). ' The Minister said that even if an ' employer and a -worker agreed to a certain clause going into an award, the Bill proposed that the Court should jiavc' power to incorporate it, provided - 3t was satisfied that such inclusion was s-ight and proper, and in the interests of the parties concerned. '• Mr. Coates: "Suppose we say the Arbitration Court goes far qnongh without making it wider. What would you say'?" The Minister: "If the House refuses ■ to'pass the Bill there will be a great •"injustice to the workers of New Zea--]aixa. The measure docs not give the - 'Court any additional power beyond what-it has been exercising fsr many years. ... The Bill will not bring in . compulsory unionism unless all parties -'■ agreo-and the Court 5s satisfied." NO AMENDMENTS. ' In. leply to an interjection, the Minfeter said it was not proposed to accept any amendments to the Bill m Committee. ■ Mr. Coates said the amendment pro- ' posed by the Bill was asked for by the Alliance of Labour. ' The Minister said it would be iouncl ; -that the alliance was-not entirely satisfied with the amendment. It was not 1 correct to say that the BUI would enable anybody to bring farm labourers under ' -the Court. ' The Acting-Prime Minister (the Hon. .fcj. A. Eansom) said that it was only recently that he was made aware that ,1 promise had been made by Mr. Porbes that the Bill would bo brought /"lown. as a Government measure, but "he was not prepared to accept the ' statement that an assurance hud been given that the Bill would be put Jhroijgh. all its stages this session. He ' was not in a position to ask for urgency i'or the ,~BUI in the same way that 'urgency had been asked for the finan- ',. cial measures, but he hoped the Opposition would agree that the Bill should have its second, reading in the ordinary . way. . "How long do you propose to give to itS'* inquired the Hon. W. Downie Stewart (Reform, Dunedin West.) The Acting-Prime Minister: "I think ' it should be given a fair run." Mr. F. Waite (Reform, Clutha): "It will be given a run, all right." When the pleasure of the House was , taken as to whether the second read- • ing should be taken at the sitting there was objection i'rom the Itoform benches, although this attitude was ro- . versed later, and the debate was proceeded with. ' REASONS FOR THJS BILL. The Minister of Labour (the Hon. S. &. Smith) related tho circumstances loading up to the introduction of tho BilL An industrial dispute had arisen between tho Federated Seamen's "Union of New Zealand Industrial Association of Workers (trawlers' section) and yandford, Ltd., of Auckland. Certain matters carl been settled in the Concilia- • tion Council and other matters upon which a settlement had not bcon reached were-"referred to the Court of Arbitration. ' After hearing the parties the Court had settled the matters in dispute and issued -its award, -Notwithstanding that certain clauses of the recommendations of the Council had been agreed to by the parties, the Court, purposely omitted those clauses from the award, oecau&e of a doubt whether such 1 provisions were within the scope of the Court's jurisdiction. Tho Court of Arbitration had submitted a case to the Court of Appeal as to whether it was within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court to include in its awards the provisions in controversy. The points in dispute had related to the questions of preference of employment of financial members of tho union over uniinancial members; compelling nonunionists on being employed to become and remain members of the union; and giving, the union power to deal with member's wilfully missing their pass- .• age; Wilfully misconducting themselves on "board the ship; or wilfully impeding tjie voyage of the ship. The Court of |&sßeial bad deeded that these were not

"industrial matters," which term might be denned briefly as covering the relationship between employers and workers, and that the Court of Arbitration had been right in refusing to include them. 'The effect of the decision of the Court of Appeal was that other matters also 3 which had in.the past been invested in-awards on the :agreemont of the parties concerned, could no longer be inserted. ■" ■':'■'■ The object of the Bill was to remedy this state of affairs and. to give to the Court of Arbitration power to include in its awards, if it so decided, matters similar to those mentioned which had been agreed upon by the parties. THIN END OF THE WEDGE. The Leader of the Opposition declared that they should do nothing that would have the effect of bringing about compulsory unionism. The Bill allowed any agreement arrived at in Conciliation Council or between employers and employees to become an industrial matter. Mr. Smith: "If the Court so agrees." Mr. Coates said it would be entirely wrong if the thin end of tho wedge was inserted by a simple arrangement between two or three men, and which might affect thousands of farmers and others. It would be dangerous for the House to do anything which would adversely affect tho primary producers. It seemed significant that the Bill had not been brought on weeks ago and referred to a Committee of the House so that evidence from the workers' and employers' organisations could bo taken. lie had received dozens of telegrams only that day from employers' organisations throughout the country. . Mr. Smith: "Under instruction." Mr J r M'Combs (Labour, Lyttelton): "They didn't send me any." (Laughter.) Mr. "I think they made a, mistake-in not doing so." Hp said he was very doubtful whether the workors wanted the Bill. He knew that leaders of unions wanted it. The reason was. obvious; they wanted it because they.had failed in the cases that had beeii referred to by' tho Minister, and the result of their failure was that in one instance a. new union had boon formed by tho men themselves. .Was the House prepared to give a blank cheque to such an organisation as might suddenly spring up as the result of the organising capacity of a union secretary who might work up a small organisation to begin with and which might grow to much greater dimensions once the Court had recognised it1? Mr. Frascr: "Would you not trust the Court?" ENOUGH IN HAND ALEEADY. Mr. Coates: "There are many people who believe the Court to-day has quito enough in its hands without giving it more, and that its ramifications are wide enough." Mr. Smith: "It is not getting any additional power." Mr. Coates: "It is, because this Bill removes a disability which exists at present." Mr. D. Jones (Reform, Mid-Canter-bury): "Why pass Bill if it is not to give extra power?" Mr. Smith: "The Bill only gives power which the Court ought to have." Mr. Coates said that that opened up a big controversial question. They knew that the Minister had been asked by a deputation to bring the amendment forward, and that the promoters of .tho deputation were disappointed men who made a profession of secretaryships. Mr. R Langstone (Labour, Waimarino): "You have them in the Reform Party." THE TABMEES' LEGAL ADVICE. Mr. W. J. Poison (Independeut, Stratford) said the farmers feared that the Bill would take the power of deciding what matter should become a subject of .industrial dispute out of the hands of the Court. They had behind that view legal opinion, and it differed from tho. viow of the Minister that the Bill would not affect the farmers.Mr. Langstonc: "Crook advice." Mr. Poison: "Well, we .have taken the best legal advice." It might ocsur that an agreemnt might be made by 3omc employers and employees which was contrary to public intorest and might contain provisions which the Act originally had never contemplated. A clause which would provide for compulsory unionism would be contrary to tho public interest. The Bill would be disastrous to the farming community. He would like the Ministor to consider how it affected farmers and others, before putting it iuto operation. The Hon.. W. Downie Stewart (Beforin, Dunedin West) asked tho Minister whether he was not going further than was reasonable at the ,-present stage .of; the session; -Tie- expressed surprise that: the- Labouv Party had not. objected tothe BilJ, for they had previously objected to Bills being-brought down in-,tho last stages of■ the session. --: Mr. P. -Praser (Labour, .Wellington Central)?.:-" We Avould like- to .-have- seen it dealt with months ago. .-■ .Better- late than never-?' ... .... •-.:.•■ Mr. ..Smith: V Some-. Bills ..must be laßt."-'' "!• .'i' r .■•'■-■■. ...-''■■.;: ■-■ ,; - WHAT.-IS.THE-JXNIONISTS' , OPINION. Mr. Stewart-expressed surprise that opportunity had- not been given for .-employers .'I- organisations to-make rep-: rcsentations concerning the Bill. It appeared to him that if the parties agreed--that a, matter was an industrial matter, the Court would have no. power to.say that it was not. ; The Bill gave a blank cheque for the parties to decide what-was to' be regarded as an industrial matter. He asked if the Minister had any evidence that there was any difference of opinion amongst the rank and file of unionists concerning the proposal. Why had the Government not brought the Bill on for discussion in precedence to many minor matters that had been dealt with? T.fMt i™s to remedy a. grave injustice it should have been brought on earlier in the session. Mr. Stewart also asked if the President of the Arbitration Coutst had beea consulted as to the wisdom or

necessity for'thp ■'jurisdiction -It was proposed to allow. ■-. ' Tho Minister: "Do you think it is a right thing for tho Government to be in contact. with the Judges'?'-' Mr. Stewart submitted that that must be done in .experimental industrial matters. -It.was..not like-consulting Judges of the .Supreme Court. It was a-matter of fact. ; .It had been the practice in.-the..past,to.consult tho Arbitration Court, .. ,He. had heard, the President of tho Court quoted in the House on previous Bills. -.The President ought to know if-there was necessity for the present proposal, and Mr. Stewart said-.ho.did not think the Minister need. have. - any diffidence about consulting him. .....,■ A SMOOTHLY WORKING LAW. Mrv.-E. J. .Hqward (Labour, Christchurch South) said no one could say the Bill had been introduced in. the dying hours of. the session, for it had been oh tho Order' Paper for a considerable time,.. ■He had. no douljt at all that Mr.■.Stewart'woulcV.oppose tooth and nail, any proposal.to'alter the I. 0. and A. Act.. Pdr'twenty years the Court had imagined" it'■ Had the power it-was proposed to. give "it,'and the power had been, believed ito'. bo operative. Nobody had. objected .'to' the 'power until tho Appeal Court had ruled that the law did not operate in the way it was thought. Mr.". Howard pointed out that for. 20 years. 'New Zealand had gone on smoothly un'def "the Act, and had been one! of the most: happy countries in the world .industrially". : . Now, at. a time of it was proposed to disturb the Act which had operated so smoothly. ' . ' .' " Mr.. W. D. Ly'snar. (Independent United, Gisborne) said he had had an assurance that the amendment would not .affect the farmers. If they were assured of that, there would be no question about the Bill. . :Mr. B. M'Keen (Labour, Wellington Soutli) said it.was'nbfc possible-to bring thefarniers under tho. operation of the I. C. and A. Act. The Bill would not affect- tho position of industrial awards any more than'was the case under the Act as it stood at present. Mr. D. Jones (Befonn, Mid-Cautcr-bury) said tho Bill was striking at the very foundations of the Court It was very far-roaehing, and they would not be justified in putting it through. Instead of extending the powers of: the Court, its 'powers' should be curtailed in order to prevent further harassing of. the farming' industry. Mr. W. Nash (Labour, Hutt) said that tho Court would still have the powers to refuse to make any award. Mr. G. Bitchene> (Eeform,Waitaki) said that the Bill was a move to bring new workers under tho Arbitration Court. In tho interests of all concerned, the. Bill should be left over until nest session. ■■■■'. . AN ADJOURNMENT UNDERSTANDING? At midnight, Mr.. Jones, rising to a point of order, said that the. understanding had been that the debate was to conclude at 12 o'clock. The Leader of the Labour Party: "There was no arrangement of the ■kind." ' •••■>:-:.,, .■".-...■ .. .■ * :■ 1 Mr. Jones: "There was an arrangement;" " . • ■ Mr. H. ,T. Armstrong (Eeform, Ckristchurch East): "You were not in' the. House." >.- ■ ! -Mr. Jones: "I know what happened." ; ' '■' ..••'..■■ i ' :."'■ '".Mr. Armstrong:''"^You weren't here, you missed the bus." . . •;:■ , The Acting-Speaker (Mr.W. A. Bodkin); said that'an-.adjournment: could come only, by inofcibn, ■■':'•' Mr.' Coates: said..that urgency had never been mentioned. His party would not agree to urgency. He had to ask one of his party .to refrain, from presenting, the; Bill: coming on, and this member had .desisted only. on the1 understanding; that the. debate was to' co'ncludo'iati.lS-o'clock. ;' ::\-- -'. •:'■;■■■ Mr. Eansom 'said• he had not- heard any suggestion of a,time limit.- . He had brought the Bill on in order,-to prevent; having a sitting in the morning.: This was the first time 'he had heard anything about .12 o 'clock. A voice: "Mr. Speaker said so." : Mr. 'Bansom:'-".lf -Mr. Speaker said so, I will not, deny; it." ; 'Mr. , Campbell: "Send, for Mr.. Speaker." ■\' ' ■'■''■•' . Mr. Smith:. "Mr. Speaker (meaning Mr.-Bodkin, who was acting) is in the chah\" ■■ ..-■ • •■■ •", '..•: ... . • Mr,' Dowhie Stewart said. ~he' had understood that it would be a two hours' debate. That had been his only reason for agreeing to the Bill being brought on. ... . ...., : Mr. Holland, said that ho had not heard 'of a time limit. It would' be foolish :to start a. discussion at 10.80' p.m. and stop it at 12 6'clock. t , / That would be a waste of time.' If the.Bill was not allowed to proceed the House would not rise before 12 o'clock on Saturday night. . ' . ' The. 'Acting-Speaker" again ruled that th© Standing Orders ended at 5.30' p.m., and that the debate couldbe. concluded only ; by a resolution of the.i House. ;-.. : At:'midnight the debate had developed into a Reform Party stonewall.: DEBATE ADJOURNED. At 2 a.m.: the Acting-Prime Minis-, ter'moved the'adjournment of'the debate. . ■ ■. '•.•.' '.:•.'.. Mr, Eraser-expressed the hope that the-House, would not: agree, and that, ■the hopes of the trades unionists would not be, dashed. He said he- did not wish.: to comment on the sign of weakness so. far as the. Government was concerned which the motion clearly-inr dicated: The Bill,, or some■ legislation of the same. ..nature, was considered as very essential to. tho well-being.of 'the trade -unionists' of-;the Dominion. Indeed, the--legislation had not gone as far as .the' unionists: wanted. The unionists had waited on the Minister of Labour, who had acted in an honourable' way throughout. The case presented to the Minister was that certain , privileges would be taken away, and that the unionists wanted them to be restored. The Minister had stated that he thought that that: was..right,, and that the status quo should be restored,4' and that he would recommend the legislation to Cabinet. —He did so, and the Bill was intrdduced early: in the session. :■ Tho Minister of Labour had told him. that It he full weight of tho Government would be placed behind it, and that so far as the .. Government could control it the Bill would be placed on the Statute Book.. Mr. :Fraser said he hoped the House would.:not agree to the evacuation- of. position which the Gov..ernment. Was .taking, up., ■. "The' motion to .adjourn was . carried by. 35 vote's, to. 16, the Beforni Party jbiniiig. with .tho; Government. .... The .debate.. *as . then declared sot down'"for" resumption '"next sitting day," .and,:,the; third, reading of the Appropriation''Biirwas called on. '. " THElfi; PATEH SHAKEN. ,; Mr. Fraser -said- that- the attitude of ■the Government..would absolutely shake aoy 'falih'"the...Labour. Party-had in the- promise., given .by tho Minister of Labour, that tho'.Bill would go through... It. soemed.that the Government's, word could.hot :l)fi,relied on. -; In "the opinion.;of Mr. Larigstone,' the division revealed that there was really!, no .'difference between tha Eeform and... United. Parties. The party responsible for keeping the Government in office, and ; which "had not run candidates at the two by-oleetions the United Party had won, had not had tho promise given to it kept, and the Government members within the next fifteen months would bo repaid for that action at the.. General Election. :"I ' only wish the General. Election was : next month," added Mr.' Langstone. . LABOUR'S SUPPORT. ►Speaking with some emotion, Mr. "W. ; Nash, said the Minister of Labour had :

made the'stateinont. in■ the Parliament? ary lobbies, that if the " -Labour P.'iipJ voted with tho Government the i>iu would, go: through. .The. Minister: had stated that the Government was behind tho Bill,, and that it was only necessary .for the Labour membors to. support it. In his opinion, if the lion. S. G. .Smith intended to live up to his utterances and his pledges..ho ..would resign forthwith from . tho • -Ministry. There was no doubt, the Actiug-Pnmo Minister had let his-colleague down. "Would that we-.could go to tho .country ' to-morrow," he said, "and tell the people how these men have acted.', Hp maintained tho Government knew how; the Reformers would vote on tho Bin. : "You a'ro wrong, there," corrected Eefo'rm members. ''What the Acting-Prime -Minister has; done is both.' unintelligent and tactless," declared Mr.""M'Combs, who declared, that there would have been:a. different result -if'; another leader/had been temporarily in charge of - : . the. party... In the. place of .Mr. Forbes, tho House, had & spineless leader—'.'. Mr. Speaker:' "The• -, lion.. '■ ..member must withdraw the,word 'spineless.'' .Mr. M'Combs: "I"will -withdraw it.; I find it very' difficult to say what I feel on Jhis-matter. -I am sure there is not a member of the; United Party who is not indignant-at what has hap.pened to-night;-... .Apart from being a gross breach of faith, it is a. tactless move. What has- b.ee.n done- is.uu''worthy of any responsible Minister." ; : ■.■.'■"..-• many' adjectives. Mr, H. T. Armstrong' (Labour, Christchurch East)'said "he" had predicted, the result from ' the: outset . because the forces of Capitalism outside the House were opposed to the Bill. The Government were the miserable tools of those forces. '...., ( • ' Mr. Speaker: "I must ask the hon. member to withdraw,that." Mr. Armstrong: "I will withdraw it> The Government is so weak that it is afraid to stand up against the -powers from outside." ■ -. ■ > . At the instance of Mr. Speaker, Mr. Armstrong "withdrew, tho'--' woi'd "afraid" and added/that there did not appear to be a:word in the English, language to fit" the occasion. .;. At all events members, could .think; a Jot and they eouTd not be prevented from doing that. ' ' ; , , - ■. ' .-..Mr. Speaker again intervened, this time with a query as to whether the member was protesting, against His ruling;' \--.-- ;;" -,■.-' ,y ■. '■.■■•■■•■■"■; •■'■-■ Mr. Armstrong .assured, him that he: was 'not. "I told my own party '■ toY day,'? he: added,-"that the. Bill would not go -through; ". It did not matter what promises the Acting-Prime Minister- or the Minister of Labour had made, because the forces outside were too strong. They played the tuno: and the Government danced to it. .' Mr. W.. Na.feh':'":i:said tho Bill would go through.." ~, :-\'': ' ..-,.: , ALESSON TO LABOUR. ' j Mr. ATmstrpng; '.'I was too old a bird1 to be caught by chaff : :'•' . ... It is |a pity we did not put the Government 6ut a long,time.ago even if.it meant putting, the Reform Party-back.; The could not bo any worse, but they might be a little more honourable." I Mr. Speaker requested the -withdrawal- of the' last sentence. . . . ,' ■ ! : Complyirigj'Mr. Armstrong contended that every member- of- the Reform Party knew the Bill would not, : "go .through. /V' ..-".."'."y-V-. .' '. i; ;-■•;}',,; Rpforrji'members: ."No, no."' • •'' "." "The:tlnited Party..did .not know it," said Colonel 'T. "W. M'Donald (United,; Wairarapa). : '■:''■: Mr. Armstrong: ."This is a lesson, to the -Labour Party. • It is a pity tho' lesson had not been demonstrated earlier in the session; but there-is', another session: to come." ; , -. '■■'■■■■ .-..-■ ■;.;.; i Mr. R. Semple- (Labour, Wellington East) declared^ that a greater betrayal had, never' taken place 'in [-the House; •_ Itmade' onoV' 'ashamed -to. be. in-.•'Parlia* ment., •-.-.. /.-.'.- ; ""' .'.-.;' :: .'". Mr. Speakcr:;f',Order!'. The hon.: gentleman must withdraw: that." ' '■'~ . .-■ "It makes one ashamed of some of the. men, that are iv Parliament/'.;said Mi1. Semple. ' ■ . ;; v Mr. Speaker: "1 am afraid that is .worse."-.',. -." ;.-,.,. .. •■-.■',.-.;' ■;,-'■:"■ ■:,.'■'' . Mr. Semple -again withdrew- arid-went. on.to aay that tactics of'tlio kind they had-:W.itne'sse.d would lieyer make a Government powerful., ; nbi',win i.the eonfl;.; dence of.-the-people.- : - ■•',';' f'TOO GiBEAT A- HURRY. " '..:' := Mr. Lys'nar made a' final appeal to the Government ; to be; in too great a: hurry_ to close; .the. session. ; He did; not know why there shqulSl; bo such a. rush.' "i"Let";Uß""' 'clean' ■the slate," he. eounsellea.v!'..-''- : ■:'■•' ■-. Mr. :A".. W-. -Hall (Reform, Hauraki):" ["What about-the Meat Bill?';' - Mr.. Lysiiar! agreed'that the,measure should be p'foeeedeii" with; ■ "If a promise had been given it-should be kept,'.' he contended. • "Lotus continue until [next week. " :■■'' .; .■■■■''-.... > a - ■'•. j, Mr. ■ Wright:/. '"What about tho races?" '■' • ■ -.-■ ■;■■ ■ ' ■'■'■ .'' [: •. Mr.'Lysnar; "That-might interest'tho hon. gentleman."',;' '' . ' :;,' : ■ ; Mr. M'Combs:.' "How did you. vote just.now?"-■ i:.-.. . ; . • , ■'■~,:' ;'; " l'voted■ .for the adjournment," saidMr; .:LJysnar;..'■[amidst '"laughter. V" There' .was. a distinct in .regard to the Bill. ■; If ■■' I -had -known that .:\T would, not hays voted a,s I did." "'...'.-'' ;;.. Mr., j. Bitchener. (Reform, Waitaki): '*Ohj you can \-ote any way you like, can't .you?"- \ ;;:;. - ■■■'■■ :,' !" : -'. , ■ .." My.' Lysnav:' "Xo, I have a, conscience." .'.,' '~J..'.y.... ■'. .- ;■ '.:-.. GOVERNMENT PROMISES. . . Mr. C. H.^Chapman'.(L'abour, AVelliiig■toir North) used-a-number of' adjeetiyes; -iii :cpndemnin'g: the action of the. Govern; ment. and was" obliged. to withdraw at .the- request- of .Mr. Speaker. .Words :f ailed him, he-said,-to flnd terms suflici■e.ntlv strong -to describe' the. Government's action. ":Seeing that a promise had been deliberately broken, they could assume that other promises wero also in jeopardy. What reliance could be placed on tho Government's undertaking that-no-dismissals would'take place from the Civil Service. He suggested tliat as there was no substantial difference-between,', the Reform ■•. ana United Parties they should-form a Coalition Cabinet. . .. Colonel T. W. M'Donald (Unitod Wairarapa) : " Never on your life.1" ■-.-'' Mr.. Chapman: "It would be at any rate an end to the hypocrisy of the present Goyonimcnt.",, •».-.■' Mr. Speaker: "Order! That is a most unparliamentary-word." . . Mr. Chapman: ;"I!_withdraw and will say it Avouid be".'tho; end of a most sorry position.-" - — APPEAL TOR ANOTHER SPIN. . ■ The Leader of tho La.bour Party expressed the hope-, the Government would ! agree to the I.C. and A.. Amendment Bill being called ;ou, again before the [session ended! A -promise had been given, and really there was no need for a rush .to finish up while work was .waiting tp" be, dotte: . He-had never expected'that the."United Party would'put into' operation .the Labour • Party Js policy.. ' The" Government had demonstrated that night that.it stood for the ultraconservative interests in New ;Zealahd. The Bill was wanted by'the whpie of the .working, people of New" Zealand, and was-'of vital..interest to the trade unionists and organised' industrial workers. It was also wanted by other people apart from those in the Labour movement; it was wanted by the very best of the employers. Mr. Jones expressed resentment of tho Labour Party's attack, remarking that tho doubt of tho Reform Party against the Bill had been quito hou«st. . They considered the Bill went further than the Minister's explanation.' ' ■■•'■ -;■•:•■ ■-. '•. . The debate on'the third-reading ofthe Appropriatioii Bill concluded at 4.35 a.m., and the 'measure was passed, the House then rising.