ARBITRATION ACT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIX, Issue 168, 15 July 1908, Page 9

ARBITRATION ACT.

V"'SPEECH BY DR. FINDLAY. ■? " A CLEAR STATEMENT. .? : \ THE GOVERNMENT WILL DO. \ (By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.) c WELLINGTON, Tuesday. ' — This afternoon in the Legislative Council the Hon. Dr Findlay, AttorneyGeneral, gave his promised speech on the • Arbitration Act. The hon. gentleman ' spoke for three hours. He commenced j by saying that, the question of the hour ■n?as our methods, actunl and proposed, ' 'for souring industrial peace. It was \ both his duty and his desire, as the re- j presentative of the Government in the Council, to reply to the criticism and the proposals made in respect of the Arbitration Art during the debate. They could consider the question under three J heads— . (1) Should we abolish and give up ' all methods of industrial peace, and re- 1 turn to the industrial status quo ante of Io years ago? ' f2) What shortcomings have the Act and the Court disclosed? \ (3) What improvements are necessary or expedient in either the Act or the Court? : "He was prepared to admit in reference to the first question that abolition would have some inherent advantages; it would obviate violations of the law. But continuance had its inherent advan- ; tages. It was clear that the country ; could not have both, although people ; other than small boys seemed to entertain the notion that they could have i their cake, and eat it too. Abolition would be easy. It would rid the Government of many perplexities, and enable it to escape the blame of both sides for industrial troubles, simply because existing legislation did not prevent them. The Government would no longer be the Patsy Bolliver responsible for all: it would no longer be held responsible for the pranks of both worker and employer. Abolition could be accomplished hy one clause. BUT WHAT Dm ABOLITION MEAN? To abolition thb Hon. Mr. Millar, amid his worries, was sorely tempted. Instead of. as now-, fighting against a sea of troubles, he could give the Act and his responsibilities under it their quietus. Dγ Findlsy affirmed that we were all participants in the blessings of industrial'peace, but we were inclined to forget 'this, and to forget also the weary wilderness of strife from which the country emerged 15 years ago. He challenged the critics of the Act to show where in the worlrl the workers had at* once more protection and better conditions than' they had in New Zealand. If any man in this country could point to his past left as an eloquent j earnest of his devotion to the | Labour cause, it was the Hon. J. I A. Millar. More than once when he sought ameliorating legislation for j the -workers he had become eponsor for ' their fair play and obedience to law, j and what wonder if he felt to-day some i Rising indignation at the manner in which j iis sincertst efforts to benefit tho work- \ ers had been flouted by a section of them. Was labour, or a section of it, going to' pay its old market price for wisdom, good counsel and devotion? —the market price of ignominy, ingratitude, and distrust? If so, then so much the worse for Labour. (Applause.) Mr ' JlillarV mindful of what preceded 1894, I. desired" to, keep the Act. but he could not- do so if it was to be broken with '. ostentatious contempt whenever it suited • the. workers. THE BURDEN OF EQUALITY. The workers wanted a court that would command the obedience of the employers and effectively punish breaches of the law, but did they want the cor- i responding obligations? The price of the benefits they sought was the burden of equality and obligation. Was Labour prepared to acept these? If not, the Prime Minister and Mr Millar were prepared to let the Act go. It ■was idle trf talk of a continuance of the Act on any other terms. Did the workers only want so much of the Act as suited them, or an Act effectively binding on both sides? Dγ Findlay outlined the charges made against the Act, and asked all to. set its success fairly against its failures, ascertain the balance, and finally judge the balance by comparison with the state of tbings that had preceded the Act. The shortcomings of the Act had been, most fully stated by Mfesrs. Rigg and Paul. Both members, sincere in purpose, contended that the Act had not secured to the workers in- the shape of wages a fair ■proportion of the increasing wealth of thi/ country. Mr Rigg "had said the - alteration of the principle of the Act from the settlement of disputes to compulsory prevention of strikes, was a mistake, but at whose instance was this done? The employers? No! The ■Workers had asked for it. He quoted ftbm a decision of the Court, speeches, and "Acts of Parliament in support of ■this statement. The Government had "been invoked again and agam to increase wages, and to limit hours. This could not go on indefinitely, and, with a lessened sense of past advantages and future favours, a course of action had l>eeri taken which prevented the Act from winning obedience to awards, and the lawn, as in all such cases, had to introduce punishments. The transition from rewards to punishments was not due to bad administration. CGNMDENCE AT A PRICE." Mr. Rigg had said that Labour had tost confidence in the administration of ifcfai Court Confidence in what? In the integrity of the Court? No! In its impartiality ? No! In its intelligence? No! They had lost confidence in getting an ■mrbroke-n continuance of the benefits |*hich the Court in the first years of the Ltet could bestow. Abuse of a tribunal fey litigants, as every lawyer knew, was often the best proof of its impartiality. If the restoration of confidence m the Court, according to Mr. Rigg, ». •what he ("the speaker) suggested, then he declared that we could not more enectiyely disgrace our seats of justice than fey seeking to restore it. It would be "better to boldly say: "Confidence is not confidence in the impartiality of the ■President of fche Court, but confidence in Jus partisanship. Perish. the whole system," declared Dr. Findlay, "rather than purchase confidence at such a price!" : PRESIDENT OF THE COURT. As for the tenure of office of the President, ho agreed that we might get a bad ■President, just as we might get a bad Supreme Court Judge. Continuing,' Dr Rndlay said that a competent Judge of an Industrial Court required a great deal of experience, and if the right mar ■ was obtained, a life tenure was not to< long., It might be the very best thin| tf a President were only to hav-e a three years' tenure of office; but would th< iwt not weigh as an inducement to ad .jaiiicate in. such a way as to secure re Dr. Findlay said he agreec

that Conciliation Boards should be abolished, and that expedition of some sort was necessary in regard to the hearing of disputes. ABOLISH THE DEAD LEVEL. The Government wished to do away with the "dead level," and clauses had been introduced in the new bill to do this. The first dutj' of any arbitration system was to provide true conciliation on the basis of State action. The existing conciliation boards did not provide that. AIDERS AND ABETTORS. The hon. gentleman continued by saying that he had given his opinion as Attorney-General that under the existing law striking was not a continuing offence, and that the offence of aiding and abetting must therefore precede the strike. He still held that opinion, and, while he might be wrong, he wished to contradict emphatically the suggestion that the opinion had been manufactured to meet political exigencies. The bill proposed to deal with men who aided and abetted strikes, and he held that those men were worse offenders than the actual offenders. The position in New Zealand was that there was a marked tendency towards uniformity in wages. The minimum wage was accepted by both sides as the standard wage. The result of that was simply what would be expected from a system that produced a dead level. REWARD FOR ISTDUSTRY. The uniform wage had reduced the productivity of the worker in most of the principal trades, and that was a national calamity. The country suffered an enormous loss in actual production, and. worse still, it was threatened by a lowering of the general standard of skill and exertion. The Government therefore proposed to meet the danger by a "needs' , wage and an "exertion" wage. He believed the worker would find the exertion system one of the greatest blessings. In New Zealand to-day only 1840 persons received £300 per year or more in wages and salary. An exertion wage, he believed, would bring the workers an increase of from 10 to 20, and even 30 per cent. The man who came to stir up revolt was the worst enemy of all classes. The professional agitator was the man who made a living by keeping things in a state of war, and was simply a parasite on Labour. In conclusion, Dr. Findlay urged the granting of equal opportunity for each individual to start fair in the race of life. (Applause.)