THE ARBITRATION ACT

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 20013, 2 December 1927, Page 8

THE ARBITRATION ACT

FURTHER DISCUSSION Suggested Conference on Amending Bill ANOTHER DEBATE IN THE HOUSE <• Association, i WELLINGTON, Dec. 1. When the House of Representatiws wet this afternoon consideration of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill was resumed in coin mittee. The Minister of Labour (the Hon. G. J. Anderson) appealed to the committee to agree to let the measure proceed and discuss it from a non-party point of view. During recent years, he said, industrial conditions had become such as to cause all men serious apprehension as to whether the present »>tructnre of the conciliation and arbitration legislation could be maintained. The primary industries were particularly affected, and the Government was anxious to do everything possible for the benefit of the industries. Conferences had been suggested but these should have something definite to consider. If such a conference were sought, would al] parties concerned attend, and if they did, w'ould lh< y consider the matters from the point of view of a beneficent solution and not with the idea of gaining particular advantage to any one section of the community. The Bill was a genuine attempt to meet the great difficulties that had developed and was not an attempt to undermine the present system of conciliation and arbitration. The Government could no doubt force the measure through, but would such a thing be of any real use? Mr H. E. Holland (Leader of the Opposition) agreed that good would result from a full discussion and suggested that if the Bill were held over till next session, somthing useful might be evolved. The Minister had said the farmers did not object on the score of wages, but they did regard conditions as burdensome. What did “conditions” mean? Did they desire to lower the conditions under wbi‘h farm labourers were working or living? Mr G. W. Forbes (Hurunui) considered the suggestion for a conference of the parties concerned was most likely to be productive of good for industry. Mr W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne) agreed as to the benefit possible from a conference, as long as the ‘‘paid agitator” from the towns was kept out. The agitator was the dread of the farmer. Mr E. J. Howard (Christchurch South) concurred with the Minister’s idea that the matter should be considered in a thoroughly conciliatory manner to see how the position, which contained difficulties, could be met. Mr F. Waite (Clutha) stressed the unanimous desire of the farmers of Otago to be exempted from the opear tion of the Arbitration AcL Mr H. T. Armstrong (Christchurch East) said if the Bill were passed it would create an industrial upheaval that would eost the country and employers a thousand times more than any awards of the Arbitration Court. Mr M .J. Savage (Auckland West) suggested the withdrawal of the Bill for the purpose of holding a conference which, he thought had a reasonable chance of success. The Prune Minister said this question was one of the most important the country had to face. So far as he was concerned he was not going to do anything to pull down the wages of the workers. They were seeking, and ought to seek, to establish a reasonable standard of living, but that was not altogether the question, which was: Where was the present system leading? Not long ago everybody was saying the farmer must be helped, but by the present system costs were fixed without the farmer’s consent and the consequence was he was bent and old before his time. Again, on what did the country depend? Obviously on th** exportable wealth, and if they make conditions such that the exportable wealth was reduced, then the country must suffer. Had the Arbitration Court fixed such conditions? The farmers said it had and were asking for relief. It was never anticipated that the Court would go as far as it had gone, and this Bill was an effort, not to reduce wages, but to have wages fixed, not by a tribunal, but to bring farmer and his employee together in a spirit of conciliation.

THE CGUNTRYS WEALTH PROSPERITY AND PRIMARY INDUSTRIES. PRIME MINISTER AND THE FARMERS. £ Special " Chronicle '* Service j W ELLIN G 1 ON, Dec. 1. The debate on the Arbitration Bill as continued at uudnignt, and there was no sign of progress being made >u me short title. Mr Coates said he regretted that he had not had an opportunity uf hearing all uf the discussion. Mr Sullivan; “It has been moat peaceful. ’ ’ Mr Coates: “I aiu glad tu hear that, because it is a mutter ot tremendous importance to this country Nothing has a more import ant bearing on liu. future of this country than me question we are discussing.’’ Mr Coates asked what was the country’s great national industry. Mr J. A. Lee: “What i> it producing, men or butter ” The Prime Minister; li is ail verv well talking; it is prosperity that counts, if loads were placed upon men that they could not bear, then tne natural result must be to undermine prosperity and bring about poverty and misery. Every person in this country depended upon the primary industry. Mr F. W. Bartram; There is the othei side to the picture. The Prime Minister -aid the moment the country ’s exportable wealth fell, nil felt it. They had to look at the mat-

ter from the point oi view of “New Zealand and Company.” Air E. J. Howard: New Zealand Unlimited. Nir ‘ oates: New Zealand and Company —we ur« all in it. lie was a farmer, although he could not help it that number of people said that he could not speak for the farmer. He could orly xpeak from the fanner’s point of view as he saw it. Mr You want to, but others are pulling you back. ?dr Parry: What is the object of the Bill if it is not to reduce wages? Mr Coates: 1 say the object of the Bill is not to reduce wages. Mr Bartram: Then what is to bring the farmer and his employee into closer contact ? , Mr J. Lee: “By destroying the I bridge. j The Prim*- Minister denied that this I was so. but said that the object was' ’ t<> try to bring about a common understanding. The Leader of the Opposition: How does the Bill make that possible? What is the machinery that will bring the iarmer and the other fellow together? ! Mr Coates: If 1 understand the Labj our disputes. . Mr Holland: It makes it possible to ! have a legal strike. Mr Coates said that the farmer looked to Parliament to see that his interests were protected. Mr Lee Martin: Like they did with the Control Board. Mr Coates: I have nn regrets over the Conttol Board—none whatever. Mr Martin: It never had a chance. Mr Coites: It is just a question whether it ever had a chance. ' Mr Sullivan: Suppose we get on with the job. The Prime Minister said that if th? farmers were struggling and could not get their heads above water the 1 ‘house had to direct attention to their ■ position.