The Dominion. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1908. THE ARBITRATION ISSUE.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 304, 17 September 1908, Page 6

The Dominion. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1908.

THE ARBITRATION ISSUE.

Parliament has decided to shirk the real industrial issue. Before the debate on the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Amendment Bill had proceeded very far last night, it had become apparent that members had made up their minds to treat compulsory arbitration as a still valid theory, a not yet discredited means of securing 'industrial peace, if not industrial progress, It lias been abundantly proved that compulsory arbitration does not secure industrial peace, but only industrial unrest and war. And men who are competent to express an opinion are convinced that it has militated against industrial progress. To a young country like thjs, struggling for stability at a time when the commercial pace of the world is extremely rapid, progress is even more important than pcace. How completely this truth has been overlooked by most people is evident from a passage in Mr. Millar's speech last night, in which, after quoting some statistics, ho suggosteel that if their undesirable features had been twicc as undesirable they would still have been a small price to pay for peace. Since the problem is to be treated as a problem in amending detail, instead of a problem in fundamental principles, little benefit can result from the Parliamentary discussion, which can only be idle chatter, since it will be irrelevant to the real point at issue. Of Mr. Millar's speech little need be said, since it was little more than a very clear explanation of the terms of tho Bill. But we must call attention to his renewed insistence upon the necessity for romembering the economic relation of New Zealand to the outside world, its dependence upon such industrial conditions as will allow it to maintain its economic stability. Important, too, was his clear enunciation of the fact that whon a trades union comes under an award it must be treated as having denied itself tho right to strike, These were both very Welcome utterances, since they are, in our opinion, the first dawnings of the full light that will inevitably break upon the Minister's legislative consciousness. That light is the hopelessness of compulsory arbitration.

None of the principal speeches were very vigorous, or particularly illuminating. Mr, Massey made it clear that he realises that the Act has failed, and that qompulsory arbitration is, after all, an impossible thing. As he said, wo shall have amendments next year, and further amendments after that,'until at last principle of this legislation is recognised for what it is, an infringement of natural and economic laws for which nature and industry will exact a heavy revenge. Holding this view, Mr. Massey might have gone a stqp further and directed the discussion along the only really fruitful line—to raise plainly. the real issue, and hasten by so much the ultimate awakoning of Parliament and the people to tho realities of the position. Tho Prime Minister's speech was chiefly notable for its fallacies and its unconscious exposure of the weakness of the case for the Act. Let us note a few of them. He dwelt at some length on the sweating horrors .that existed prior to 1894, forgetting that the Sweating Commission reported in 1890 "that tho system known, in London and elsewhere as 'sweating,' and which seemed at one time likely to obtain a footing in some of our cities, does not exist."' He claimed that the Arbitration Act had bettered the workers' condition —although 'Mr. Massey had reminded the House that the wages for agricultural labour, the one unregulated branch of industry, had increased far more than the .wages in regulated trades—forgetful that if the Arbitration Act is to be given the credit of any improvement of conditions during its life, it must bear the blamo of the evils contemporaneous with it? operation, one of which is tho : disquieting increase in the public debt, and another the prcssive rise in the cost of living. He declared that the rise in the cost oi living depended on the price of our produce in _ foreign markets, forgetful that the price of our produce may with equal force be claimed as the cause of any prosperity enjoyed by the workers. Ho .asked, in reply to Mr. Massey's reference to tho ondles3 amendments mado in tho Act, what other important legislation passed in 1894 had not been similarly amended, owing to the variation of conditions, forgetful that the Act claims to be founded on a universal truth indifferent to ephemeral conditions, Ho emphasised the fact that there had beon less than a score of strikes in 14 years, forgetful of the fact that they have all occurred in two years. He said the wonder was that there had not beon more strikes, forgetful of the fact that it took 12 years for the cup of Labour to fill and the striking point to begin, and forgetful also of the fact that there is still tho future to be looked to.

A word must bo said upon Sir Joseph Warp 5 attempt to defend the cravcn policy pursued by the Government during the troubles of the last nine months. Who now questions that the Government was swayed throughout by any higher moti-Ye than a fatuous anxiety to keep oji good terms with Labour? The Prime Minister's case was therefore >bad to begin with, but he could hardly have supported it by worse arguments than those he employed. He actually took credit to himsolf for not " conforming to the clamour "—so he describes the unanimous voico of an outraged public opinion. He said that if ho had imprisoned any strikers ho would have been charged with weakness! But the climax of his argument was his declaration that it would have boon " a criminal act " 011 the part of tho Government if they had imprisoned any strikers—a criminal act. to enforce tho law ! It is even doubtful whether lie dtios disapprove of the imprisonment of strikers. If he does, why did tho Bill brought down this session contain a provision for the imprisonment of workers? As we have said, the real issue has been avoided, but it is only a matter,of time before it will demand recognition by Parliament. In tho meantime, the Bill must'bo discusscd with the'moat earnest

care, and not disposed of so perfunctorily as was suggested by the Pjume Minister's hope that the sooner the House got rid of " this preliminary discussion " the better. On many points amendment is very necessary. For example, there is a noxious " gag " clause to be removed or modified. It is important that no injustice shall be imported into this final hopeless attempt to conquer the invincible laws of human nature and of economics.