MR. BEEBY’S BILL.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume I, Issue 167, 1 July 1911, Page 3

MR. BEEBY’S BILL.

INDU STR IA L ARBITRATION. THE AUSTRALIAN TENDENCY. (Bv A. G. Stephens.) Mr. Beeby. the Minister of Labour in New South Wales, who introduced the new Arbitration Act, is of course a member of the Labour Party that now rules New Smith Wales Legislative Assembly anil supplies the Cabinet With the Prime Minister, Mr. M Gowen, absent attending the Coronation, the Government can muster only a single vote more than the Opposition anti Independent parties combined. But it can effectively reckon upon Opposition and Independent support. The Independent party, of about half a dozen members, may be called waiters on Providence, and their hope, is rather with Labour than with the. Liberals. When the Federal Labour members return front England it is likely that the division in the Labour party over the referendum will end in the expulsion of Mr. Holman and others; in which case, if those retain their seats, the Independent« will receive an accession of strength that may enable them to hold the balance of power. At present the Independents naturally do not wish to risk an election. so will vote to keep the Government in office. .

.Meanwhile. Mr. Beeby introduces his Bill. He is one of the more moderate and more intelligent members of the Labour party, and managed to preserve his independent attitude upon the referendum without incurring the personal hostility shown to Mr. Holman. A lawyer by profession, he had. before his elevation to the Cabinet, a leading practice in industrial cases, and his Bill is really an honest and earnest attempt to better the existing lawOne notable novelty in the Bill is the reduction of the power of tlie Court, which is virtually converted into a Court of Appeal exclusively. The whole of the work f arbitration is to be done by the permanent Wages Boards, which •will be equivalent to some two dozen little Courts, each charged with the oversight of a group of trades. Above them the Judge sits to decide the law and harmonise the practice. It has been explained that the area, the population and the industries of New South Wales make this plan necessary. If there were not so many existing awards some such plan would be necessary in New Zealand too. The difficulty is to keep procedure rigid enough to give firmness and unity to the whole structure of agreements, yet pliable enough to adapt fresh agreements to fresh circumstances. Since the impetus was given to Board-making in New South Wales more than a hundred Boards have been appointed, often in overlapping trades. Mr. Beeby proposes to reduce the awards to system. Another change made by the Bill is the enlargement of the power of the Minister. At present, in New South Wales, the parties nominate the Boards, members choose a chairman acceptable to the Court, and the Minister acquiesces. Often the, chairmen have been barristers, without personal knowledge of the trades, but able to guide deliberations and to exercise conciliatory tact. Sometimes the chairmen have been fair-mind-ed laymen, connected with the trades, approved by both parties. The plan has worked well, for the chairmen acted judicially, and the.