I.C. AND A. ACT

Southland Times, Issue 21855, 4 November 1932, Page 8

I.C. AND A. ACT

AMENDMENT BILL x SECOND READING DEFEATED SOME TENSE MOMENTS (From Our Parliamentary Reporter). Wellington, November 3. There were some tense moments in the House this afternoon when members turned their attention to the second reading of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill, sponsored by Mr J. McCombs. The entry into the debate of the Government member for New Plymouth, Mr S. G. Smith, was the signal for several sharp exchanges. When the second reading of the measure was called, Mr .Speaker said that one of the clauses in the bill raised the question whether the agreement between the Government and certain of its employees was affected. Finally after a discussion the second reading was lost by 24 votes to 41. Mr McCombs said he did not think that any such agreement existed. The Prime Minister indicated that there were agreements affecting seamen and stewards on the Matai and Maui Pomare. Mr Speaker said that the question would have to be considered by the Chairman of Committees if the bill reached the Committee stage. Mr McCombs asked whether the Prime Minister would agree to the bill going to a Select Committee. The Prime Minister said that no good purpose could be served by sending the measure to the committee. In moving the second reading, Mr McCombs said that the legislation of last session had proved disastrous to the Dominion and to the workers and industries of the country. He knew that there were a number of employers not in favour of what they were being compelled to do in regard to award and agreements. A certain amount of moderation had been shown by some of the Employers’ Associations but the President of the New Zealand Employers’ Association had said that what had been done was only a preliminary. When the full policy was applied, it would be the greatest disaster which had befallen New Zealand in the last 20 or 25 years. If the bill were passed that disaster would be prevented. He was exceedingly disappointed at the attitude of the Prime Minister in not allowing the bill to go before the Labour Bills Committee where evidence could be heard. He had been in the House for years and had never seen a Government or Prime Minister adopt such a dictatorial attitude toward thousands of workers as had been done by refusing permission for evidence to be taken. After several Labour members had supported Mr McCombs, Mr Smith entered into the debate. He said that he supported the attitude that had been adopted by the Government in reference to amendments to the I. C. and A. Act. Mr J. A. Lee (L., Grey Lynn): Have you the courage to talk to your electors that way? Mr Smith: I have courage on all occasions. I have the courage to speak to my electors and I would not talk the silly nonsense that was talked by Mr Lee the other night. No doubt he would have his howlers along there, but I can assure him that I would make my speech in spite of the howlers. I’m not afraid of anything in my district. The hon. gentleman has been in my electorate on two occasions and he has not uttered one word of hope for the workers. The only thing he could talk about was mouse traps. Mr F. Jones (L., Dunedin South): Who is the Minister for mouse traps? Mr Smith: No doubt the hon. gentleman will be when he gets into office. Mr Smith went on to contend that members of the Labour* Party had changed their attitude in reference to the Arbitration Court. He knew that the Labour Party had said that it would hold up any amendments that were proposed to I. C. and A. Act. The Leader of the Opposition: Where did you get that from? Mr Smith: I got it all right, but I am going to be very careful about disclosing the source of my information. He went on to say that the leaders of industrial unions outside the House had declined to admit the serious position in which the country was. The small shopkeeper was afraid to express his opinion to-day on political matters owing to fear of a boycott. The Leader of the Opposition: If a worker expresses his opinion he is put in gaol. Mr Smith: Gaol would be too good for men who have expressed some of the opinions I have heard. The Labour Party has introduced this bill just to put itself on side with the workers, but there are others who have done and are doing a great deal more in the interests of the workers and are not talking so much about it. Mr Smith referred to the attitude adopted by industrial leaders outside the House. Mr R. Semple (L., Wellington East): They are more allied to your party than they are to us. Mr Smith: I have read that they instruct the Labour Party to do certain things. Mr Semple: They instructed us to do nothing. Mr Smith concluded by saying that he had entered the debate for the purpose of making his position clear. Mr H. T. Armstrong (L., Christchurch East) said that the attitude of the member for New Plymouth had been perfectly clear to the Labour Party for a very considerable time. It was nothing short of tragedy that a member should enter the House on the votes of trade unionists and then let them down. Mr Smith: I have come back again and again. Mr Armstrong: It is a most deplorable state of affairs. We find the member for New Plymouth supporting the most unscrupulous set of employers that this country has ever known. He said that Mr Smith had trotted out arguments which had been used in years that had gone by. Mr Armstrong said that it was obvious that Mr Smith was the mere mouthpiece of the Employers’ Federation. After further discussion the second reading of the bill was defeated by 41 votes to 24, the Labour party having the support of Messrs A. M. Samuel, T. Tirikatene and H. M. Rushworth.