The N.Z. Times. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1908. THE ARBITRATION BILL

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 6624, 14 September 1908, Page 4

The N.Z. Times.

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1908. THE ARBITRATION BILL

mm wnrrn is incorporated tub “wiLtitNOios INDBBENDMMT.” ESTABLISHED 1615.

It is sincerely to be hoped that when Parliament deals with tho Arbitration Bill members will concentrate their wisdom on the task. Tho Prime Minister has more than once urged that this important question should be freed from party considerations, and while this may be too much to hope for while we have a prejudiced Opposition, bound hand and foot to everything that is unprogressive, and badly advised by certain newspaper critics who do not understand their subject, it is nevertheless desirable, at the present juncture, that the thoughts of Liberals and Conservatives alike should bo directed towards the best possible solution of the difficult industrial problem. We may base our reflections on the premise that Now Zealand desires to maintain the principle, of which she is the pioneer, of compulsory arbitration. It will be admitted on all sides that this is not going to prove a simple matter, and the permanency of laws to prevent strikes can only be attained on lines of scrupulous justice- Those persons who have kept themselves acquainted with facts, and have not allowed {prejudice to obscure their judgment, will have noticed that the British Trades Union Congress, this year the largest gathering on record in England of representatives of organised labour, has again rejected a resolution favouring compulsory arbitration. Tho voting was 1,090,000 against and 645,000 for—a majority of 454,000 votes. The Congress has for years past consistently rejected the means in operation in New Zealand of dealing with disputes between wage-earners and employers. Last year the *■ majority against tho principle was 657,000; in 1906 it was 397,000; in 1905, 92,000; in 1904, 486,000. In the debate at the Congress last year compulsory arbitration was condemned as slavery, and was declared to have been a failure in Australasia, and the delegates rejected it, notwithstanding that tho preceding twelve months had been months of unusually active industrial warfare, involving an aggregate loss of time amounting to 3,028,816 working days. The condemnation by British . workmen of the principle of arbitration as. applied in Australia and New Zealand may matter little to us, and may be based on appreciation of tho mistakes, made in the past, by both workers and; employers, rather than upon general, knowledge of the wonderfully tranquil conditions enjoyed, in New Zealand, at, all events, for very many years. But, if Parliament is not careful, if the. Arbitration Court is not judicious, wq may have the cry of legalised slavery raised in this country with some justice. As we have stated before, it is high time Parliament took this great, question seriously in hand, and put thej law regarding strikes and lock-outs at once on a basis of strict justice and equity, and in terms so clear that the Court may give plain and rapid judgments instead of indulging in interesting, but unavailing, etymological exercises. The recommendations of the | Labour Bills Committee which has, been considering the Government’s. Arbitration Act Amendment Bill oon-, tain several features of great conse-, .quence. First, there is a clear con-

domnation of tho absurd anti-striko clause which the latest awards of tho Court. Tho committee holds that a union should be held to have instigated a strike only when rt is shown that a majority of members of tho union are parties to tho strike. This will, if passed, do away with the fantastic scheme of tho Court by which a small sectional strdee would, without the least inquiry, upset tho whole arbitration machinery concerning the trade affected throughout tho industrial district. The Labour Bills Committee has taken the view, which has been consistently prosecuted in these columns, that for tho efficient enforcement of the law a strike must be hold to bo a continuing offence. Judge Sim’s decision on this point destroyed a great part of tho Act in its design to prevent strikes by stopping supplies of money for strikers, and while wo may bo incompetent to quarrel with tho President of the Court on intricate, technical questions of law, we do not yield to him on the matter of common-sense. Hence, it is satisfactory to find tho committee alivo to the need for a definite understanding on this vital point. With some of the amendments of tho committee wo find it impossible to agree. We regret that the clauses seeking to remove tho objectionable dead-level of wages have been jettisoned, though tho difficulties of instituting the Hon. Dr Findlay’s needs and exertion wage scheme are, it must be admitted, not conhned to tho objections of trades unionists. Wo are not without hope that the principle sought to bo established by the Attorney-General will yet find expression in a workable plan evolved out of study and experience combined. A distinct blot on the report of the committee is the excision of the clause providing for tho appointment of assessors to assist the Court. Probably much of tho friction in tho past has ■been due to the obvious impossibility of tho three men on tho Bench, bo they ever so patient and painstaking, arriving at anything approaching adequate knowledge of tho technicalities they have to deal with. The declaration that strikes are illegal and punishable is such a serious thing that the utmost precaution should be taken to ensure fair awards, and we hope the House of Representatives will not hesitate to restore the clause for the appointment of assessors. We are sorry to observe that tho craze for application of the “ gag," which threatens to become an unattractive feature of tho second ballots next December, show’s a tendency, as evil things do, to grow. Tlie Labour Bills Committee now seeks to curtail tho privileges and the power of the press by prohibiting the publication of opinions “ for or against ” in reference to an impending strike or lock-out. The silencing of views favouring strikes is consistent with tho law which says strikes must not be, but tho attempt to stop newspapers assisting to maintain the authority ot the statute and the Court can find no justification outside the realm of topsyturvydom, Here, again, we look to Parliament to throw out the committee’s suggestion.