ARBITRATION BILL

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 2 December 1927, Page 5

ARBITRATION BILL

FRIVOLOUS AMENDMENTS.

OPPOSITION TO THE MEASURE. LABOUR. PARTY PREPARED-. (BY TELEGRArH—SPECIAL TO "THE STAR.”) Wellington! Detc. 1. The Govetrnment again in the House of Representatives gave an opportunity for consideration in committee of tlie much amended Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration. Act Amendment, which, according to tlie Minister of Labour, in a speech which opened the long debate, represented an attempt to solve a really serious problem facing the farming industry. Labour members had oecn in preparation for a long discussion and were provided with material for it by means of a big series of amendments designed, to ridicule the measure. They concentrated on its short, title, which Mr J. McCombs proposed to- amend to “Disputes Extension and Limitation of Arbitration Bill.’' Mr H. G. R. Mason gave notice to tag to its title of arbitration tlie words “and repeal.” Mr F. N. Bartram wished to add “and suspension.’ Mr J. A. Lee wanted an addition “and annulment,” while Mr P. Fraser, assuming that all these amendments would be lost, prepared to move the addition of the words “and repudiation.” Mr E. J. Howard prefere.rd a title which would include “Trade Union Prevention” and an order paper foolscap size had to be prepared by the Government, printer accordingly. A MINISTER’S PLEA. “Something has got to be done for the fanners,” declared the Hon. G. J. Anderson, Minister of Labour, who endeavoured to demonstrate that high costs and difficult labour conditions were hampering the industry on which the Dominion wholly depended. He had introduced this Bill to* help the situation and) he added that it would not be assisted much by the moving of frivolous amendments. He appealed to members to abandon party prejudices and to- tackle this problem in a broad way. Nine mpnths ago tone of ‘his ministerial colleagues had suggested a general conference to discuss the matter, but. his experience wa.s that unless a conference had something definite on which to make amendments it would produce nothing and get nowhere. Then if he got together the various interests would they deal with the matter in any other way than to .serve their own interest.

Mr J. Lee: “You <a©k them to be something more than human beings.” Mr Anderson: “Let ns take this, thing in hand and see. if we can arrive at something to’ benefit this great industry.” A conference l would only come back and tell Parliament that’s your job and his opinion was that it was the responsibility of members. Obstruction of the Bill by moving a lot of frivolous amendments would do no good. Mr H. T. Armstrong: “Bury it.”

A LONG DEBATE PROGRESS REPORTED. CONFERENCE TO BE HELD THIS MORNING. (by telegraph—press association.) WELLINGTON, Dee. 1. When the House of Representatives met at 2.30 p.m., consideration of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill was continued in. com. mittee. The Minister of Labour, the Hon. G. J. Anderson, appealed to the committee to agree to let the measure proceed and discuss it from a non-party point of view. Mr. H. E. Holland agreed that good would result from full discussion, and he suggested that if the Bill was held over till next session something useful might be evolved. The Minister had said the farmers did not object on the score of wages, hut they did regard the conditions as burdensome. What did ‘“conditions” mean 1 ? Did they desire to lower the conditions under which farm labourers were working or living? Air. G. W. Forbes considered the suggestion for a conference of the parties concerned was most likely to be productive of good for industry.

Air. W. D. Lysnar agreed as to the benefit possible from a conference as long as the ‘‘paid agitator” from the towns was kept out. Tlie agitation was the dread of the farmer. Mr. E. J. Howard concurred in the Minister’s idea that the matter should be considered in a thoroughly conciliatory manner to see how the position could be met so that the best possible results were obtained. Good feeling prevailed at present between the wagetakers and the wage-payers, and nothing should be done to militate against this position. The Bill would outlaw a large section of the workers from the benefits of the Conciliation and Arbi tration Act.

At 7.30 the debate was continued by Mr. F. Waite, who stressed the unanimous desire of the farmers of Otago t( be exempted from the operation of the Arbitration Act.

■Mr. If. T. Armstrong said if the Bill passed it would create an industrial upheaval that would cost the country and the employers a thousand times more than any awards of tlie Arbitration Court.

Mr. M. J. Savage suggested the withdrawal of the Bill for the purpose of holding a conference which, he thought, had a reasonable chance of success. Mr A. M. Samuel also favoured a confer cnee at which the farmers could discuss the position among themselves. Tlie debate was carried on by Messrs A. Hamilton, J. A. Lee, Forsyth, Sullivan, J. Mason, Kyle, J. R. Hamilton 11. E. Holland, Howard and the lion. D. Buddo.

The Prime Minister said this question was one of the most important the country had to face. So far as lie was concerned lie was not going to do anything to pull down the wages of the workers. They were seeking and ought to seek to establish a reasonable standard of living, but that was not altogether the question. - The question was, where was our present system leading us? Not long ago everybody was saying the farmer must be helped. By the present- system costs were fixed without the farmer’s con sent, and the consequence was that he was bent and old before his time. Again, on what did our country depend? Obviously on our exportable wealth, and if we made tli.e conditions such that our exportable wealth was re-

duced, then the country must suffer. Had the Arbitration Court fixed such conditions? The farmers said it had, and were asking for relief. It was never anticipated that the court would go as far as it had gone, and this Bill was an effort-, not to reduce wages, but to have wages fixed, not by a tribunal, but to bring the Tarmer and his employee to settle the matter in a spirit of conciliation.

At 1 o ’clock Air Holland suggested to the Prime Minister that a conference of a committee of both sides of the House should meet in the morning and discuss the details' of the Bill and see if there was any possibility of arriving at a common understanding. ’ Otherwise they were only going to drift into a long acrimonious discussion. The Prime Alinister said if the committee would pass the short title of the Bill, then he would be prepared to report. progress to meet in the morning and. discuss what further steps should be taken.

Gn this understanding progress was reported at 1.20. A conference will be held in the morning.