PARLIAMENT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2299, 18 September 1908, Page 3

PARLIAMENT.

WEDNESDAY EVENING’S SPITING. [Press Association.] WELLINGTON, Sept. 17. i In the House after midnight-, Dr. Chappie regretted that the labor leaders had maligned the Minister whose earnest- exposition of the question that night showed he had the best interests of labor at heart. Mr. A. W. Hogg regretted that Magistrates were superseded by a single Commissioner. ! Mr. F. Marnier said that everyone | would help to put a workable mensj ure on the Statute Book, Much moro | was to be hoped from voluntary con- ! dilation than from compulsory nrbij trillion. Mr. J. Stallworthv supported tho measure ns amended by tho conimit--1 tee.

'fhe debate was adjourned at- 12.44 a.m . LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. afternoon!SlTTlNG. The Council.met -at 2.30 p.m. The amendments, made by the House to the Declaratory Judgments Bill were agreed to. Tho lnangahua Countv Bill was put

through committee, read a third time, i and passed. • The Matainatai County Bill, the (.Hokitika Harbor ■Amendment Bill, and the Auckland (Symonds Street) Cemeteries Bill were read a second time. The Attorney-General, in moving the second reading of the WellingtonManawatu Railway Purchase Bill, said that the Premier had made a creditable bargain with the owners of the line, which was also satisfactory to the people of tho Dominion. Ho explained the provisions of tho Bill, which have already been fully reported when before the House.? Hon. T. K. Macdonald complimented the Attorney-General on the satisfactory arrangements tho Government ■ had made. Hons. McCnrdlo, Bcehan, Loughnan. Paul, and Jones also complimented the Government. 'The Council adjourned at 4,55 p.m. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. AFTERNOON SITTING. The House met at 2.30 p.m. The'interrupted debate on the motion to go into committee on the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Bill was resumed by Mr. T. H. Davey, who contended that tho Arbitration Act had been of great benefit to tlie

workers. A great deal of the striking which had.taken place had been engineered by foreign malcontents. Referring to the recent decisions of the Arbitration Court, especially the new clause in regard to suspending awards in the case of strikes, this raised the important question whether awards should follow legislation or legislation follow awards. He contended that no Court should have the power to override any clause or the expressed intention of Parliament, As to the failure of the Court to mako an award in the farm laborers’ dispute, that was derogatory to the dignity of the Court. An award should have been made, even if the Court declared the status quo should remain. He approved of the conciliation machinery provided by the Bill, suggesting the appointment of practical men from the industrial world as commissioners in preference to legally trained men. Air. J. M. Hornsby said it was better not to have n. lawyer as President of the Arbitration Court. Trade unionists had suffered in the past by legal technicalities. It would be much better if disputes were decided on equity and good conscience. He thought unionists should have power to- classify themselves. Classification was indispensable, the present system being utterly unfair to superior 'workmen.

Air. J. F. Arnold said it was easy to make suggestions, but not so easy to give practical effect to them. Air. Hornsby’s suggestion for classification would result in chaos. If the superior workman did not get a fair show that was the fault of tho employer and not of the Court, which only fixed the minimum wage. Not ten per cent of either the workers or the employers was ill favor of the repealing of the laiy. The discontent with tho Act was due to interminable delays and lack of finality under itlie system of Conciliation Boards, which assuredly ought to be abolished; Air. T. M. Ayilford contended that Conciliation Boards liad been an utter failure. Their real function had been, in the happy words of a critic, “to stir up strife.” There should be no permanent Conciliation Commissioners as proposed, but a Conciliation Board of experts representing both sides should bo immediately called into being whenever a dispute occurred. Air. D. Buddo held that the arbitration system must be retained. As to tho allegation as to the deterioration of labor and the falling off in efficiency, he asserted tlia-t the colonial workmen compared very favorably with the workmen of the Old Country. He generally supported the Bill, subject to some minor amendments to be made in committee i® the direction of ensuring that Conciliation Councils shall be composed of experts. Air. T. K. Sidey objected to the two-Court system. He felt that the Arbitration Court should have had more power. One Conciliation Commissioner to each island was inadequate. Alagistrates should have been maintained as chairmen of Conciliation Councils. EVENING BITTING. Tlie House resumed at 7.30 p.m. The debate was continued by Air. C. Lewis, who condemned the attempt to solve the labor problem by compulsory arbitration. It was, lie said, akin to an endeavor to make water flow up hill. Aloreover, when labor was dissatisfied with an award, wlnat happened ? If a union was strong enough to influence elections, the Government of tho day, at its bidding, passed legis. lari on to override tho Court's award. It had frequently been done for unions, but never for employers, and that fact had shattered his faith in the impartiality of those who administered the system and prevented him from assessing at high value the proclamations of the integrity of the law, which must be upheld, made from the platform bv members of the Government. This interference with the Court meant that the worst features of the American system were creeping into our administration. Mr. 0. H. Izard congratulated the Labor Bills' Committee on. the work it had done -upon this measure, which they liad greatly improved. He eon■tenfledi that the Arbitration Act had, in a large measure, prevented strikes and had generally improved the condition of the worker. He believed ■in tlie principle of Conciliation Councils, but thought that where there was a dispute either side should bo required to notify to. the other that fact, naming a referee. Tho other side would appoint a- referee, and the two referees would appoint a. chairman. This would ensure experts, combined with a promptitude of settlement. The .Conciliation Councils proposed would be a great deal more palatable to workers than the existing Boards, which, for various reasons, proved absolute failures. Under tlie now system lie thought there would be very little reference to tho Court of Arbitration, but two Conciliation Commissioners were not nearly enough, iliero should be at least one for every industrial district to ensure prompt settlement. He thought the proviso relating to attachment for fines should bo made more clastic. Single men keeping mothers or sisters should be allowed a wider margin than £1 a week and £2 a week was not enough tor a married man to live upon. Mr. G. Laurenson said there appeared to bo an extraordinary difference of opinion as to tho nature of the Jaw winch should) come between, the employer and the worker, with the unanimous agreement that some law ot a sort was required. As to the declaration that political interference had degraded the Court,- What.had belittled and in lured tho Coui’t was .the abuse levelled at it l>v its capitalistic critics. He denied that the Act had resulted in weakening the moral fibre of workers. The contrary was the case.

Air, F. R. Flatmnn generally supported the Bill, but thought the number of Commissioners proposed was quite inadequate. Mr. C. K. Major generally supported the principle of arbitration. He argued that the condition of the workers had been greatly improved since 1894, and every honest worker recognised that this was a good Bill. Mr. J. A. Hunan supported the Bill, hut thought tho parties concerned should appoint tlie chairmen of the Conciliation Councils instead of the Government appointing permanent officials.

lion. J. A. Alillur, in reply, said it could not possibly bo asserted that the Act had been a failure. Under the Act the condition of workers had (improved and industries had gone ahead. In committee lie would ask them to insert a clause giving the Government. power to appoint more than two Conciliation Commissioners, if the circumstances required lit-. Ho dollied that tho efficiency of the workers had .declined, and said there was no serious grounds to fear victimisation, No union which tried to classify members would Inst five minutes. The motion was agreed to. The House resolved itself into committee on tlie Bill. Clauses 1 and 2 were passed as Amended by the Labor Bills Committee. In Clause 3 verbal alterations to make the aiding and abetting clause operative in law were agreed to. Clause 4 was passed with considerable verbal amendments.