“GAG” AS ANSWER

Grey River Argus, 16 March 1932, Page 5

“GAG” AS ANSWER

TO LABOUR’S CASE Against Arbitration Bill PREMIER’S CRY FOR CHEAP LABOUR. (From, our Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, March 15. After the quietude in the second reading debate for several days on the Arbitration Amendment Bill, it again created a stir in the House this evening when -it was responsible for the second application of the closure in the new Parliament. Labour speakers carried the debate on through the afternoon and for' part of the evening on Mr McCombe’ amendment. Air Hamilton said that .a statement had been made that employers were against the Bill. It was probably true that some of the employers were opposed to it. He would say that any amount of working men were in favour of this legislation, for they were waiting for it to go through so that ' they could get a job. '

The Minister said Mr W. Nash had given one of the best arguments in favour of the Bill when he had stated that the export industries had practically doubled themselves since 1914. Another member had stated that secondary industries had gone back. Would the ’ export industries - have doubled had there been awards governing primary industries? Local industries had not flourished to the same extent as primary industries. The purchasing power of the working man was a very subtle argument on the part of the Labour Party, but nothing would put the wheels of industry going more speedily than an increase in the purchasing power of the primary producers. When the bell rang for Mr Hamilton. an extension of his time was moved. Air McCombs objected.

Air Coates broke the dead silence which followed by exclaiming: “Well. I’m blessed!’’ Mr McCombs called back; “Control Air McDougall and I will withdraw my objection. ’ ’

As soon as Air Hamilton had finished his speech and resumed his seat, Mr Forbes dealt an effective blow in retaliation by moving the closure of the debate.

The Labour members wore clearly taken by surprise, but Mr Langstone endeavoured to stall off the evil moment by raising a point of order. He claimed that Air Lee had been on his feet to speak and that Mr Forbes had also risen, and that Air Lee, seeing Mr Forbes rise, immediately gave way. Therefore a Member had been on his feet to speak, and the Standing Orders stated that the Closure could not be put if a member was on his feet. The Speaker, Sir C. Statham, ruled that, as lie had called on neither Air Forbes nor Air Lee, no Member was addressing the House, and that, therefore, Air Forbes was quite in order in moving his motion.

As soon as the closure had been carried. there was nothing loft but to divide the House again, first on the Amendment, and then on the second reading.

The closure was carried by 44 votes to 23.

The Labour amendment was defeated by 41 votes to 27. Thon the second reading of the Bill was carried by 41 votes to 29. The House next wont into committee on the Bill. Discussing the short title, Mr Forbes referred to the Economists’ Report. Mr Semple: “You don’t take them seriously, do you ?’ 9 Mr Forbes: ‘‘lt is a matter of feeling with the honourable gentleman. Tf he feels hurt, he becomes very eloquent. The Economists’ job was to examine the position.” Mr Holland: “Do you claim that they were right?” Mr Lee: “Yon packed the jury!” Mr Forbes: “They simply had to present a picture of the position as they saw it, and they showed that income had fallen from £150,000,000 to £90,000.000.” Nobody who was not blended by prejudice, Mr Forbes added, would see that, with such a drop in income, people could not buy as much as they could hitherto, and the costs of their industry had to be reduced to enable them to do so. The problem facing the country was to bring costs down to this purchasing power. Tf this wore not done, there would be more empty factories and a greater number of unemployed, men in the country. He honestly believed that this amendment to the Act would enable more men to be kept in industry.

Mr Forbes quoted a court case from Napier where a butcher flad been fined because he had employed a boy, an orphan, who was glad to get the work, simply because the award would not allow more boys in his establishment. The Magistrate, he said, had sympathised with him, but he had to administer the law.

Mr P. Fraser said that this was the Prime Minister’s first contribution to the debate on the Bill, and it showed that the House had missed nothing. It seemed from the trivial matter which the Prime Minister had produced as an example of the court’s harshness, that the Prime Minister wished to introduce a system of boy labour, and to force the bread winners with families out of industry.

Mr O’Brien’s Speech

SOME POINTED CRITICISM. WELLINGTON, March 15. Discussion on the short title of the Arbitration Amendment Bill was continued by the Labour members. In a general review of the measure. Mr O’Brien (Westland), rising at 11.30 to speak, said that despite repeated requests from the Labour Party, the Government had failed to give any concrete reason for the Bill, or even to give any specific industry which .-.

suffering through the operation of the court. He had been surprised at the small number of old Liberals in the House who were prepared to stand by the principles of the old Liberals. Referring to Air McSkiniming, Air O’Brien called him “the greatest Tory who ever entered politics. ’ ’ He denied Air McSkiniming’s assertion that, the slow man made the pace on the usual job. Air O’Brien claimed it was the fast man who made the pace on the job. Discussing the Bill generally, he said that Ministers had claimed that the Bill would not affect the women workers. Was the Government prepared, he asked, to exempt all of the organisations that had women memberships? Mr Coates: No.

Air O’Brien: Well, then, you intend the women’s wages to be brought down, to the same as the men’s wages.

Air Coates: Most of them will go before the Court, as now.

Mr O’Brien: Well, why the Bill? Air O ’Brien reminded Mr Coates that if one employer were to refuse to go to the Court, ho could hold up the whole industry.

Mr O’Brien’s speech was interrupted by the midnight adjournment, and the discussion will be resumed to-mor-row.

OTAGO MANUFACTURERS. AWAKE TO BILL’S MENACE. DUNEDIN, March 15. A discussion took place in committee at a meeting of the Dunedin Manufacturers to-night on the amendment” proposed in the Arbitration Bill, now before Parliament. The trend of discussion showed clearly that a large number of the manufacturers arc distinctly opposed to any legislation that will have the effect of abolishing the Arbitration Court.