PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21130, 12 March 1932, Page 14

PARLIAMENT.

THE ARBITRATION BILL. ANOTHER DAY'S DEBATE. AMENDMENTS I'UOBABLE. VEILED LABOUIt THREAT. MINISTERS ENTER LISTS. [BY TIiXEUBAm. —SPECIAL REPORTER.] wV.LLINGTON, Friday. The division on the second reading of tho InclusLrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill is expected to tako place in the House of Representatives 011 | Monday. The debate which be«an yesterday was continued throughout to-day without revealing any unexpected views. Suggestions wcro made in the lobbies to-day that the Labour Party had relaxed" its determination to fight the bill tooth and nail and to confine speeches within short limits. Interviewed 011 the point, however, the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. 11. E. Holland, denied the suggestion "We arc determined to fight this bill to tho last, ditch," he declared. At any rate, to-day's speeches from tho Labour benches lacked the tire of yesterday. That may denote a change of tactics on Labour's part to be revealed later in the committee stages. Prospects in Committee. It seems certain that the bill will sin vivc the second reading by a comfortable majority, but it is almost equally cej tain that amendments to some clauses will be made in Committee. Although the clauses will come under much closer scrutiny in Committee there has already developed a considerable controversy regarding the provision to exclude by Ordcr-in-Council from the operations of the principal Act any specified industries Mr. W. Nash (Labour—Hutt) drew the Minister of Labour, Hon. A. Hamilton, on that po:nt during the debate tonight and the Minister's remark seemed to convey the impression that tho clause may be dropped or amended. A warning industrial strife might follow the passing of the bill has several times come from the Labour benches in the guise of a veiled threat. A typical instance was provided to-day Ijy Mr. P G. Sullivan (Avon) whose positions as one of the Labour Whips and Mayor of Christchurch, lend a ring of authority to his utterances. "We have been accused of making threats," said Mr. Sullivan "I say w,e are making threats, not aga:nst just men, but against unjust men Tf this proposed legislation is going to be used for the purpose of putting humiliation, hardship and exploitation on workers, then we say some of the workers anyhow will resist and they will be supported by members- of the Labour Party in the resistance they offer to such intolerable conditions." Necessity for Legislation. Two members of the Ministry, Hon. E. A. Ransom and Hon. C. E. Macmillan, entered the lists to argue the necessity for the legislation in order that industry might be placed 011 a sounder basis. Mr. Ransom did not contend that no hardship would be caused, but he did urge that the urgency of the times called for a fair distribution of the burden. Both Ministers cited figures to show the great disparity between producers costs and export prices. . It is reliablv understood that the only defections from the Government ranks when the second reading division is taken will be Messrs. A. J. Stallworthy, A. M. Samuel, R. A. Wright and J. Connolly. Mr. Stallworthy made his position perfectly clear when speaking late to-night in vigorous opposition to the bill. Some other members of the Coalition, while objecting to some principles in the bill, do not feel justified in voting against the Government. They consider that if they take such a step, they may be obliged to consider their position in the party. ' It is not likely that party discipline will be applied against the Coalitionists voting against the bill, although were a very close division expected, u sterner view might be taken. • Thirteen members expressed their views 011 the bill yesterday and 15 further speeches were heard to-day.

DEBATE ON MEASURE. EFFECT ON EMPLOYEES. ASSURANCE BY MINISTER. [BY TELEGRAPH. —PRESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON, Friday. The debate on the second rending of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill was resumed in the House of Representatives to-day. Mr. A. S. Richards (Labour—Eoskill) said the bill was a direct attack on the workers. It was not wanted by the public, and he did not believe all members of the Government party favoured it. Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Labour—Avon) referred to the suggestion that Labour members were adopting a threatening attitude regarding the bill, and said that if the legislation was to be used to impose humiliation, hardship and exploitation on the workers, and if the workers resisted, they would bo supported by members of the Labour Party. > The Hon. E. A. Hansom, Minister of Lands, said he did not think employers would endanger I heir industries by trying to impose unjust conditions. Workers would still have the protection of public opinion. Thero would be no incentive to break off conciliation proceedings when it was realised a case would not necessarily be referred to the Court. There would, on the contrary, be tho strongest possiblo incentive to reach an agreement. He considered New Zealand was well past the worst stage of (lie depression, and was on the upward move. There were, however, restrictions in industry that would have to be removed. Mr. W. P. Kndoun (Government— Parnell) expressed himself in favour of the abolition of preference to unionists, which he believed would smarten up industry. The Hon. C. K. Macmillaii, Minister of Agriculture, said he did not think there were grounds for I lie nervousness of the Opposition members concerning tho effect the measure might, have on employees. He promised (hat if it operated as dreadfully as they feared it would the Government would immediately introduce drastic remedial legislation. The Hon. A. 0. McLcocl said the anxiety of the Labour Parly seemed to be entirely for those in work and not for the unemployed. Unless there was an all-round loosening of Arbitration Court, conditions there would be more and more out of work. The second Government member to express opposition to the bill whs Mr. A. ,T. Rtallworthy (Eden), who said that whatever happened he hoped the Government would cunt'nne the protection of women and juvenile employees. He had 011 first studying the bill come to the conclusion that it was a futile, clumsy selfcont radictory, reactionary measure. He had listened to the Minister's case for the bill with an open mind, but he had not been convinced. He had told his electors lie would support the compulsory arlftration system and that was where he stood to-day. He hoped tho Prime Minister would accept important ameudments to the bill. The debate was adjourned and the House rose at 11.55 p.m. until 7.30 p.m. on Monday.