KILLED BY COUNCIL.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 216, 16 October 1914, Page 11

KILLED BY COUNCIL.

MR WILFORD'S FACTORIES BILL. COMMITTEE'S REPORT UPHELD. [From our own Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, October 15. The debate ori the Hon. J. T. Paul's. , motion to commit the Factories Act Amendment Bill was resumed in the ' Legislative Council this afternoon. ( The Hon. J. MacGregor (Otago), continuing his speech of the previous day, \ said that the statement' of the union secretary before the Labour Bills Com- i mittee was not worthy of being called evidence at all. The Council had a right to expect evidence in support of the Bill of the same nature as if the Arbitration Court had been appealed to. The hon. member proceeded to read a > type-written statement bolstering tip the mill-owners' case. The Hon. G. Jones (Otago): Who is the writer of this? Mr MacGregor: N A person thoroughly competent to certify —to prove everyone of the statements he has committed himself to. The Hon. J. T. Paul (Otago): He is thoroughly prejudiced. ; Mr G. Jones: Scandalous. Mr Macgregor said that the statement he had read was the class of evidence that ought to have been received by the Labour Bills Committee. On making investigations he was surprised to find ■ that the author of the clause which made a distinction in the principal Act in favour of the woollen mills was Mr Jones. Mr Jones: That is quite right. I admitted it. Mr MacGregor: That accounts for the somewhat apologetic tone of his speech. Mr G. Jones: I would do it again under the same circumstances. What about your socialistic speech when you first came" I 'into the Council? Mr MacGregor stated that according to the inspector of factories the same conditions existed in regard to the woollen mills as when the principal Act was passed. There was a difference of 5 per cent, in the tariff in favour of clothing factories as compared with the woollen mills. The position he took up on the Labour Bills. Committee was that from his knowledge of the woollen industry he knew that it would be impossible to reduce the hours of women and boys without reducing also the hours of male adult employees. There was absolutely no justification for anyone who had any regard for the woollen industry to refuse to adopt the recommendations of the Committee.' The Hon. J. Duthie (Wellington) said that the Bill, though the shortest probably that had ever been brought before the Council, was pregnant with important issues. It admitted of no amendment and the most important point about it was that it flouted the Arbitration Court which had full power to deal with the questions at issue. Why ask Parliament to take away the powers of the Court? That was not the way to adjust the social relations of the community. He could not understand how • the Bill had been allowed to pass the ; House, and it was certainly the class of measure the Council ought to stop. Did the hon. member introducing the Bill ; and those supporting him consider the : consequences of breaking away from a; solemn engagement. The matter was one that ought to be gone into by the Arbitration Court, but it should not be sprung upon the Legislature in this surprising fashion. He was a freetrader, but if it was necessary to give relief to ! the workers, he would be prepared to in- ; crease the protection afforded by the ; tariff. It was the duty of the Council to stop hasty legislation, and this was a clear ease for the Second Chamber to act. Nothing had been brought forward to justify the passing of the Bill. The cause of Labour was not to be advanced by such measures as this. Above all things, they must respect the law, and assist to maintain it. They must recognise other interests besides their own, and not snatch an advantage though a passing opportunity presented, itself of doing so. ; - IN DEFENCE. , ;/ The Hon. J. T., Paul (Otago), in reply, said he did not expect anything charitable from Mr MacGregor, but he had a right to fair criticism; instead of the thinly veiled insimiations 'indulged in.' The history , of the Bill; 'in that Chamber was that it was read'a second time pro forma, and .voted down without discussion by the Labour Bills Committee. ~ His. motion, was , the only method.of getting the Bill back on the floor of the Council* The Hon. H. i D. Bell: That is quite '. right, but you- did it too sodn. ■ Mr Paul ; continued that when' he ', brought his motion [forward he was met ' by an amendment that the Bill should , be comm.ittedi '' that day six months,'' so that there was an attempt to thwart him at every turn. He had not !■ reflected unfairly, on members of the Council. He had not discussed the con- ! ditions under which new members were

appointed to the Council, but he remembered, very vividly that the Leader, of the Couneil, in discussing the ap 1 pointments, said that naturally no gentleman would be asked to come to the Council who would oppose measures of the Government. '• The Hon. H. D. Bell: No; who would oppose the Legislative Council Bill. Mr Paul: Look at No. 13, page 364 of '' Hansard,'' and you can see; the words you used. .■■'.' Mr Bell: I am not going to bother about it. Mr Paul: I can quite understand that. Referring to the evidence given before the Labour Bills Committee Mr Paul pointed out Mr Kennedy, the union secretary, had given .the only class of evidence he could give—hearsay evidence, and members of the! Committee would acknowledge that he j had given his testimony in a very | straightforward fashion. (Hear, hear.) An interesting dialogue had taken place i between Mr Hardy and Mr Leithhead j at the Committee, for Mr Hardy got j quite a different set of answers to what j he expected. The autobiographical ac- I count of Mr Hardy's visit to the Pe- ; tone Mill was unique, and would add to ! ► the gaiety Of nations so far as Labour was concerned. Mr Hardy found one tired worker, as he admitted. Many tired workers could be found if they were looked for properly. It was absurd to suggest that looking after an intricate machine for four and a half hours at a stretch was not a. great physical strain. Reduction of hours would not reduce the output. The question had been gone into scientifically, and this had been proved. In his own trade it had been demonstrated that in 42 hours the same men could produce as much as they had formerly produced in 48 hours. In the minds of some, no time was opportune for the improvement of industrial'conditions, but he wanted to do something for the women woollen workers before they got to heaven. It was amusing to notice the adoration of certain hon. gentlemen for the Arbitration Court. Any argument was good enough for them to side-track the issue. The excuse of the Arbitration Court for not. interfering in this matter would be that the hours of labour were fixed by Statute. The workers had no chance of getting a-re-duction in hours whilst the 48 hours' ] standard remained on the Statute Book. He believed strongly that this was a fair measure of reform, and, much as he respected his fellow members and gentlemen who led the Council he would sacrifice them all rather than sacrifice what he believed to be his duty in urging this reform on behalf of the women workers. The Hon. G. Jones, in personal explanation, stated that thirteen years ago, when he moved the clause of the principal Act, which it was now proposed to delete* he had at his back the whole of the Labour members, it' being recognised that the circumstances were exceptional. On a. division the motion was negatived by 16 votes to 10. . Ayes 10. . Noes 16. Paul . Bell Jones ~ Aitken. Louisson Duthie Beehan Fisher Earnshaw Hardy Parata George ; • Baldey MacGi.bbon Hall-Jones Mills Thompson Morgan Wigram Nikora Moore MacGregor Maginnity Ormond Simpson Samuel >