ARBITRATION COURTS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18079, 2 May 1922, Page 8

ARBITRATION COURTS.

UNSATISFACTORY WORK.

OPINION OF MR. HTJGHES.

[from our own correspondent.] SYDNEY. April 19. The opinion that'the arbitration system was most unsatisfactory, and should be superseded by industrial tribunals was expressed in a recent speech by the Prime Minister. Mr. Hughes declared that the labour question was the greatest problem facing Australia. For many years the principle of settling industrial disputes and conditions of wages by Arbitration Courts had bean accepted. Unfortunately there was a movement on foot to abolish all methods of settling disputes by recognised tribunals, and to resort to the old methods of strikes and lock-outs. With this view be did not agree!*' He believed that the settlement of disputes by recognised tribunals was the recognition of the principles upon which civilisation was progressing. They had set up tribunals to settle international disputes and to prevent war. In the industrial sphere Arbitration Courts endeavoured to protect and do even-handed justice to the different sections of society. He thought that was right, and felt quite sure that the people of Australia would not go back to the old method of direct action, as advocated by both sides. In the opinion of Mr. Hughes the present system of Arbitration Courts in Australia was most unsatisfactory. The much more preferable method of settling industrial disputes would be the substitution of tribunals for Courts of Arbitration. On these tribunals there should be an equal number of employers and employees with ar< Impartial chairman, who should not be a lawyer.