Evening Post. THURSDAY, AUGUST 20, 1908.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVI, Issue 44, 20 August 1908, Page 6

Evening Post. THURSDAY, AUGUST 20, 1908.

ARBITRATION LEGISLATION.

I The Post stands for no political party, and cares nothing which shibboleth, or which label, is cried or preserved, as long as Parliament seeks and attains the common interest in tho best way possible at the time. Our reasons for suggesting the withdrawal of the amending Arbitration Bill, either wholly or partially, were clear and to our mind unassailable. Parliament, in the effluxion of time, is moribund ; Parliament is ready to die; Parliament already feels death in its bones. It has lost energy and lost hope ; and will not regain them till it is braced and revivified by contact with the electors. Members are wearied and pre-oceupied ; their popular mandate is an expiring breath; they fill ! their roles as ciphers, not as integers ; they discuss matters in hand with an eye to the coming contest. They are so busy in preparing for that contest that they cannot devote its due of strength to their proper business. This is natural and obvious, and we do not complain. The Parliamentary system must be accepted with the defects of the system. But a reasonable order can be preserved in despite. It is unreasonable to suppose that Parliament, in its enfeebled condition, is fit to conquer a new territory in the field of arbitration law, including new theories and contentious provisions, at the bidding of a Government that is involved inextricably in the knot of its own maladministration, and knows no more than anyone which way to turn for a knife. Quite plainly this is no time for experiments, and the new Bill is a rash experiment. In no true sense is it an amending Bill. Amorphous, ill-drafted, a composite of hasty plans and dubious plasters, it will no sooner reach the statute-book, if carried, than it will require itself to be amended, and pruned, and patched. The present Parliament, to all appearances, is impotent to better it except by ousting it. Its vital changes of law should in decency not be made without the deliberate consideration which Parliament has no time to give, and is indeed incompetent to give. The whole matter of industrial law demands consideration from a new Parliament, fresh from the people. Therefore we urged, and we believe there was prudence and wisdom in the urging, that it is the duty of the Government to took beyond temporary claims and party interest to the general good, and either | to withdraw the present Bill, or io confine its operation to those lacks and blots of the existing law that are generally admitted, or of which Government force.! tho unconvinced admission Hy rolyaiftg t« af J?ly the existing IWk

Our argument has been honoured by tike attention and commentary of our confraternity of the Press. The respectable opposition seems to us to depend upon a. misunderstanding of the situation; and, in so far as it accepts the situation, to be wanting in logic! Wo take that excellent journal, the Otago Daily Times, as a case in point. Quoting, the Times declares : "It is not tho Act, our contemporary says, but the administration of the. Act, that has broken down. And that is probably true." It is certainly true. The Times, admits it in its next sentence: "Certainly it is the feeble., nerveless administration of the lavrthat has brought the law into disrepute." Then : "But *ye are afraid that the time has passed when the present law can any longer be administered satisfactorily." In the dishonoured name of Aristotle, why?. How can the time when a law can ba administered satisfactorily | ever pass ? There is only need to change ' the administration., or to change the administrators. The Times says that feeble administration has brought the law into disrepute. And what is its remedy? Not to alter the administration, but to alter the law! How can that help, if the administration remains feeble? Since the fault is admitted to lie with the- administration, and nob with the law, how is the fault mended by changing the law and, preserving the administration? Really, this is unworthy of Dunedin. It is an injustice to the land that bore Joseph Hume. And the Times proceeds : "The provisions it (the Act) contains for the prevention of strikes have been allowed virtually to become a dead letter." Then what is the use of provisions ostensibly more stringent if these also are to become a dead letter? And why should the Times demand new legislation instead of demanding that the old legislation should be enforced ? According to the Times, the Minister for Labour has a gun which he is afraid to fire off : therefore, give him a cannon. Holy sini- j plicity ! What amendment does the Times want? What amendment does it thinki the new Bill provides ? At pro- j sent a striker may be fined £10. The new Bill fines him just the same sum — £10. How does that enliven the dead letter of the law? True, a striker in certain industries without three weeks' notice is to bs liable to the £10 fine or three months' imprisonment. Tramways are included. And, since the Government has not enforced even a mild law against the Auckland strikers, why should the dead letter be expected to live merely because, income circumstances, the Government may apply' a more severe law? The opposition must really be declared to lack discrimination. All that is needed for the moment is an alteration of procedure, and the new Bill perpetuates old errors of procedure. Besides, it is reactionary in that it lessens the power of the Arbitration Court to deal with a strike by making it look to the intent of the striker, instead of leaving it free in the premisses. The existing law against strikes, all points considered, is really the more efficacious ; and "the big threats upon which the Times places reliance are mere empty sound. The Government tactics may be guessed at. Government will not withdraw the Bill ; and it will not make itself unpopular by enforcing the Act any more than it can help. Government offers a stone for bread — a new law instead of an efficient administration of the old law ; and ingenuous critics like the Otago Daily Times will mumble tho stone and applaud the offer — being unable to comprehend that their applause is gained on a false issue. Parliament will rend and tear the Bill instead of rending and tearing the Government that has mishandled the Act ; and, since the skin is closer than the coat, that will suit the Government very well. To throw over the "needs and exertion wage" is easy ; but it is not so easy to prosecute the Auckland strikers, each liable to a £10 fine. What is wanted is that Parliament shall. spend its rage on the Bill instead of on the Government : there is always plenty of time for legislation, but there is not much time before the Government faces the country at the general election. The country too will be asked to accept law in lieu of administration : words instead of deeds. The people is used to expecting a miracle from a new law, and in the light of the miracle may be persuaded to forget that the old law was , just as efficient — if only it had been applied. Thus the Bill will be withdrawn" in essence, though not in appearance. The Government will not shirk it; but it is insufficiently convinced of its merit or utility to fight •it in integrity, should opposition be serious. Serious opposition is unlikely," for the opposition is divided. Parliament will be satisfied with excisions and amendments, and the Government will bo satisfied with the remainder. The Bill can be quoted as a proof of good intent. And since good intent is accepted as making amends for bad performance, justice and the Otago Daily Times will be satisfied. Only people who realise that the breakdown of administration sooner or later means the break-down of tho law will remain dissatisfied, as we are.