Parliament in Session

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVIII, Issue 225, 5 September 1928, Page 6

Parliament in Session

Church of England Bill Referred to Special Committee

Wellington, September 4. The second reading of the Church of England Empowering Bill was moved in the House of Representatives tc*day by Mr YV. J. Girling (Wairau), who explained that the Bill, which has passed through the Legislative Council, was necessary ii order to preserve the identity of tl.e Church and so preserve its property, in view of possible amendments which may be made in the formularies of the Church. As the Bill was going to a special committee he did not propose to discuss the details of the Bill at that stage, but would reserve what he to say as to its particular Mr A. Harris (Waiteata) said he hoped the House would not pass the Bill which would enable the Church to adopt a revised Prayer Book such as that recently rejected by the House of Commons. There was a widespread feeling that some of the clergy of the Church were tending toward the Church of Rome; therefore, he hoped the special committee would closely scrutinise the measure, as any alteration in the present f rm of worship should be viewed very seriously. The Hon. J. A. Young (Minister of Health) said he had recently been waited on by a deputation, which pointed out that the Bill proposed to make very radical changes in the doctrines and teachings of the Church With that he was not so much concerned, but it had been stated that from time to time bequests had been niade to the Church on the basis of its unamended doctrine. If it was now proposed to alter that doctrine, then it was diverting the purposes of the bequests, and this should not be done lightly. Mr H. G. Dickie (Patea) defended the Bill and said he would support it, because the safeguards provided were so complete that he saw no danger in

SERIES OF QUESTIONS

Mr H. Atmore (Nelson) said he had been approached along the lines mentioned by Mr Y’ounr and much might be said in that connection. He also approved of what Mr Harris had -aid because there was an impression that ther e were those in the Church who were not loyal to the faith of the Church. He read a series of questions which had been submitted to him, and to these questions he requested an answer from the mover of the Bill. The questions were: (1) Why should the Book of Common Prayer be altered? (2) Is the present form and manner of making Bishops invalid? If so, why? If not, why are alterations necessary ? 03 What articles ar e to be substituted for the 39 Articles as the clearly defined doctrines of the Church? (4) What are the new formularies to be adopted ? (5) What is wrong with the authorised version of the Bible? (6) W hat Version is to be used instead ? (7) W’hat parts of the Scriptures are to be altered o’- deleted? (8) Who is to be authorised to censor the Bible? Proceeding, Mr Atmore said Anglicans of New Zealand would look t<. Parliament to protect their interests There was a movement in England on the part of a number of Anglicans to adopt another form of Communion. They were, of course, entitled to do this but thev should not do it undor the shelter of the Church of England ; they, should not endeavour to change or divide te existing Church. PURELY’ AN EMPOWERING BILL Mr Girling, in reply, said the subject of the Bill was not new; it had been raised in 1874 by Bishop Harper, who had endeavoured to get some alterations made without suceesj. Later, in 1895. the question had been revived, and amongst its opponents was Archbishop Julius, who feared that if changes in doctrine were made the property of the Church would be endangered. The result cf the famous case in Scotland justified that fear, but the matter had recently heen canvassed by all sections of the Church, and the provisions of the Bill had been generally approved. It did not mean that if the Bill was passed the changes in view would be made immediately, ’t was purely an Empowering Bill, Had the revised Prayer Book been adopted in England it could have been adopted in New Zealand on a bare majority vote. To safeguard that position this Bill had heen put forward hy General Synod. If the revised Prayer Rook proposal was put forward it would have to be submitted to the Church peenle of the Dominion. and a two-thirds majority cf General Synod would have to approve it. In addition, the Bill contained provision for a court of appeal, so that he did not think any Bill promoted in the British Empire contained greater safeguards against radical alterations being made suddenly in the formularies of the Chinch. In conclusion, he desired to assure the House that the Bill amply safeguarded the doctrine and teaching of the Church so far as it concerned the Holy Communion. The Bill was read the second time.

ARBITRATION SYSTEM. PREMIER URGES SPIRIT OF COOPERATION. Wellington, September 4. The Prime Minister moved the second reading of the Industrial Conciliation and Ai bitration Amendment Bill in the House of Representatives this evening. ■ Mr Coates said the Bill followed upon the statement made by him in the House recently upon the conference which met to consider whether our arbitration system should continue or whether it should be atneniied. At present certain awards were in a state of suspense, and the Bill did no more than enable those so affected to go to the Arbitration Court. Another conference would be held and the Government would give legislative effect to the decisions arrived at. Some of these decisions might be given legislative effect to this session. He was pressing for that, but if not this session then it would be done next session. The Opposition might say there was some doubt about that.

Mr H. E, Holland; We will see to that. . . , , Mr Coates said it was very good ot the honourable gentleman, but whatever Government came into power he presumed the commitments of one Government would be to some extent given effect to by the next Government. Replying to an interjection, Mr Coates said he did not stand for a reduction in wages or in the standards of living, and when he did anything in those directions he hoped his attention would be drawn to it. With regard to the primary producers, they were uneasy because they felt that working costs were being increased without their being consulted. He did not agree with everything the Labour leaders said, but there were indications that many of them were deeply desirous of arriving at industrial peace. He was one who believed that to-day the worker was a man of equal intelligence with his employers—at least, we should be arriving at that stage now, since so many advantages are given to people in all walks of life. That being so, it should be possible to arrive at some workable agreement in disputes. He was satisfied this country could never make the progress we would all like to see it make unless we have industrial peace, whether we get that peace more surely by round table agreements or by compulsory arbitration. Until the further conference is held he appealed for an active exhibition of healthy co-operation between all employers and employees. SHEEPOWNERS AND SHEARERS. • The Leader of the Opposition said that no doubt the wages question was one about which there always would be disputes. It had been so since the wage system was first established, and the roots of difference went deep down into history. The practical question to-day was whether an industry which could not pay a li iug wage was worth supporting. He thoug’t not, because the first thing about industry was that the people should have a reasonable standard of living. The Prime Minister had appealed in a spirit of friendly co-ope-ration, hut only within the last few days the sheepowners had refused to meet the shearers’ representatives, and this Bill would give the shearers no recourse. What was the Prime Minister going to do about that? He regretted that the House had not been allowed to finish the discussion on the report of the industrial conference before tl. ■ Bill was brought down. They would then have had a better understanding of the position. He, however, hoped that in those industries where grievances existed the employers would agre to meet their employees in conference and not take up the attitude of the sheepowners. Ide did not propose to oppose the Hill. Sir John Luke (Wellington North) said the Bill was no violation of the I. C. and A. Act. It merely postponed the Arbitration Act until the national industrial conference could resume.

Mr W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne) said that 95 per cent, of tlie workmen were good men. but the five per cent, ot agitators were interfering with them. If men did a good days work n agitator came along and said. “You are doing too much,” and so now it was almost impossible to get a good man in any line. He hoped the next conference would result in a better spirit being cultivated between employers and employees. Mr J. McCombs (Lyttelton) raid the Prime Minister had agreed to have the books of the flaxmillers examined in the hope that the investigation would result in a reduction cf wages, but he had not taken any steps to have the books of the sheepowners examined, because that was a prosperous industry. If ho had a right to intervene in one case, he had a right to intervene in the other. Mr W. A. Y’eitch (Wanganui' said that to secure industrial peace on the basis of voluntary conferences wes i.o doubt a very fine idea!) but there must be a final arbiter to determine points upon which no mutual agreement could be arrived at. - He hoped the House would hesitate before it abolished the method of settling disputes by means of arbitration. Mr J. A. Lee (Auckland East) said the Reform party was always claiming a human standard for the farmer, but no such claim was made for the farm labourer. The Labour party wanted to see a human standard for all workers.

PREMIER’S APPEAL. The Prime Minister, iu reply, said it was satisfactory to find that the Leader of the Opposition was in general accord with the steps the Government was taking to bring about stabilisation in industrial affairs. He had been twitted with intervening in the flaxmillers’ dispute, but he had done so in the interests of both parties at the request of independent citizens, who represented to him that the dispute was doing great mutual injury. It was not because the Government was opposed to the Arbitration Court that that case was not referred to the court. The Government was not opposed to the court, and it was an outrage to say that the Reform party stood for the state of the labour market existing at the time the Arbitration Act was pas 1. lie had never advocated the reduction of wages or of standards of living, which was more important, and it was not to reduce wages, but to get industry restarted that he had intervened m the flaxmilling dispute. He had no heen approached to intervene in the slieepowners’ and shearers’ dispute. No deadlock had reached him in that industry. In the case of the flax industry it did reach him. The spirit of the world to-day was tending town ids conciliation, and he urged that this spirit should be made to apply to the industrial life of New Zealand. He thought the Government was taking a wise course in assembling another conference with this object in view. The Bill was read the second lime.