PROTEST LODGED

Dominion, Volume 35, Issue 173, 18 April 1942, Page 8

PROTEST LODGED

Proposed Status Of Court Of Arbitration OPINIONS OF LAWYERS Protests have been made by Mr. H. F. O’Leary, K.C., president of the New Zealand Law Society, and Mr. G. G. G. Watson, a member of the council of the society, on behalf of the legal profession to the Minister of Justice, Mr. Mason, against proposals suggested by speakers at the conference of the Federation of Labour that there should be legislation making the decisions of the Court of Arbitration final and not subject to appeal to other courts.

"Speaking for myself." said Mr. O'Leary yesterday, "though I am sure that in what I say I express the views of mil less than 95 per cent, of lawyers throughout New Zealand. I think the proposals wrong, unwise, and impracticable. They are wrong because they are in effect an attack on our judiciary. A strong and independent judiciary is ns necessary a part-of our Constitution as Parliament itself, and any proposal which would lessen the prestige ami the jurisdiction of that judiciary is wrong and should be opposed. “The proposals involve the deternniM; tion of all questions concerning workers rights and wages by one tribunal, buck questions would be many and diverse claims under contract, claims under tort, claims under awards, and orders of Court. No matter how impartial, careful, and able the tribunal may be, it might give l erroneous and wrong decisions, and, in my opinion, it would be unwise to give one tribunal such wide jurisdiction with no other Court empowered to correct its errors or review its decisions. . 1 “I think the schine would be inipracticable. It would result in endless delays in having matters determined and in many cases the cost would make the taking of proceedings impossible. . Ihe result would be a denial of. justice in many cases. Delay in justice is it sen a denial of justice. “Speaking generally, I would say tins: Undoubtedly judgments do on occasions create hardships. Some may think at times that they do wrong. But to en_deavour to put right individual hardships and wrongs by legislation is a hazardous proceeding. The full effect of sm*i legislation may not be fully. realized. It may not be ascertainable till after it is passed, and then it may.be found that in remedying one hardship Unit legislation has .created others infinitely greater in number and- much more harmful. That is why I say that, apart from the specific objections I mention, such legislation is n hazardous pioceeding.” The Minister promised that every consideration would be given to the representations by Mr. O’Leary and Mr. Watson.