ORGANISED BLOCKADE OF ARBITRATION BILL

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 20005, 23 November 1927, Page 9

ORGANISED BLOCKADE OF ARBITRATION BILL

OUTCRY FROM OPPOSITION

- COMMITTEE’S REPORT CRITICISED SEVERELY IN HOUSE OF REPS. [ Per Press Association. ]

WELLINGTON, Nov. 22. ’ In the House of Representatives this afternoon, Sir John Luke (Wellington North) brought down the report of the Labour Bills Committee on the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill, which recommended that the Bill be allowed to proceed with the amendments shown on the copy of the Bill attached.

Sir John Luke referred to the amendments, amongst which was the deletion of' clauses two to ten inclusive, dealing with the constitution of the Court. There were also several consequential amendments necessitated by the deletions. Orcharding had been exempted from the operation of the Court, along with the farming industry, and every award or industrial agreement in force to which the Bill applied —that was -to say, with reference to the farming industry or dairy factories —would cease to operate on July 31, 1928. “A Scrap of Paper.” Mr P. Fraser (Wellington Central): Good heavens. Teaming up a scrap of paper! Mr T. M. Wilford (Hutt): It is a thing of shreds and patches. Mr W. E. Parry (Auckland Central): There will bo a lot of other amendments, too, just quietly. Continuing, Sir John Luke said he had not regarded the Bill from the point of view of the farmers in New Zealand alone, but he had considered it from the point of view of the farming! industry world-wide. Farming in New Zealand was not so attractive as it formerly was, and they had to regard the effect of that fact upon the question of unemployment. The two things were undoubtedly linked up, and there was a great need of something being done to improve the position of the farming industry. They needed more production to meet obligations in connection with the National Debt, and the farming industry stood apart from all others. It had difficulties not shown by other industries in the cities, and for that reason some greater latitude for it was required. He therefore favoured exemption from the operation of the Bill to give it elbow-room to expand and produce the best results. He did not stand for a reduction of wages, but he stood for the removal of impediments which prevented farmers reaching their full development. Mr E. J. Howard (Christchurch South) said the Labour Bills Committee sat two weeks on the Bill, heard 44 witnesses coming from workers to university professors, but not a word of that evidence had the chairman of the Committee given to the House. He had left severely alone the Bill, which proposed to alter the Act, on which this country had borrowed millions of pounds. The report was not a report on the Bill at all—it was a few words conveying the chairman’s opinion on the condition of this country. The report shook his faith in. the Labour Bills Committee, which in the first place was loaded against Labour by the Government majority, and further one member of the committee seemed to be in possession of all sorts of Government information that was not given to other members. That member had even sent to outside bodies asking them to pass resolutions against the Bill, but when resolutions in favour of the Bill were passed, they were suppressed. That was improper conduct on the part of a man who ought to be sitting in the capacity of a juryman. Mr Howard proceeded to review the evidence given before the Committee, which, he said, was overwhelmingly against the Bill. Mr Parry attacked the report of the Committee and defended the principal of preference of Unionists. “Fooling the Farmers.” Mr H. T. Armstrong (Christchurch East) said the chairman had defended the Bill because it was in the interests of the farmers, but there was nothing in the Bill that interested the farmers. They never had been subject to awards of the Arbitration Court, and the Bill was only another method of fooling the

farmers. No word in the English language could adequately describe the deceptive nature of the measure. Mr W. J. Jordan (Manukau) declared that the motive behind the Bill was to force down wages, and to do that the Reform Party was seeking to abolish arbitration. Mr G. W. Forbes (Hurunui) said the question of arbitration should not be treated as a party one. Such a great principle in the country’s industrial life should receive the hearty support of both parties, but so far it had not received that but with,, all its disadvantages it had tended to create industrial peace. In that way it was one of the soundest principles which any country could adopt. He favoured the constitution of the Court as stated in the Bill as originally brought down, and he regretted that no explanation had been given as to why those clauses had been struck out. The whole position required thorough investigation, and he did not approve of the attempt to deal with the position in the present hurried fashion. He favoured a conference during the recess and a comprehensive Bill next session as a result. For the Conference. Mr Wilford said the clauses struck out were tho clauses he wanted, and he felt at a dead end because they had gone.

The Hon. G. J. Anderson (Minister of Labour) remarked that those clauses were being kept for the conference. Mr Wilford said he was glad to hear that, because he believed the Court, as so constituted, would be a Conciliation Court, which was what was wanted. When the House resumed at 7.30 pjn. the Prime Minister moved the suspension of standing orders for the purpose of permitting the debate on the report to proceed. He added that when this report was adopted there were other committee reports which they were anxious to get before the House. Mr H. E. Holland (Leader of the Opposition): Do you propose to bring them up to-night?

The Prime Minister: That is for the House to say.

Mr Holland strongly objected to the House agreeing to the motion. It meant that important legislation was being set aside to make way for a bill which no one had asked for and no one wanted. The Bill was being opposed from one end of tho country to the other, and he objected to its being given precedence over other measures which were of greater urgency. Sir Joseph Ward (Invercargill) said he could not understand why, in a contentious matter such as this evidently was, the Minister of Labour did not get up and tell members what he wanted and what it was proposed to do. The result of this want of candour must be that members would be taking half the night just because they were not told what the views of the Ministry were about it. Other Rills Set Aside. Mr Fraser declared that the House was entitled to some reason for the course proposed by the Government. There was no clamour for this Bill, but there was a clamour for the Licensing Bill and the Gaming Bill, which were being set aside. It was unfair to rush and scurry legislation of this kind through at what everyone believed was the end of the sessioA The objection to the motion was continued by Mr W. G. Veiteh CWanganui) and at 9 p.m. was being carried on by Mr D. G. Sullivan (Avon) on lines which looked like a well-organis-ed opposition. Organised Blockade Lost The discussion continued until 10.15 p.m. when the whips were seen in conference, and, obviously under some arrangement, a division was taken, when the motion was agreed to by 33 votes to 14. Sir John Luke then replied to the original debate and the report of the Labour Bills Committee was adopted.