THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES MONDAY, MARCH 21, 1932. THE ARBITRATION BILL.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21599, 21 March 1932, Page 6

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES MONDAY , MARCH 21, 1932. THE ARBITRATION BILL.

The Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, which has now passed the Lower House in the teeth of the stubborn opposition of the Labour Party, has not been wholly purged of the features that called for criticism. One blot on the measure has been removed. The Government has withdrawn the objectionable clause under which any specified industries might by Order-in-Council—in other words, by the decision of the Government itself — have been excluded from the operation of the Act. It has adhered, however, to the pi’oposal that there must be substantial unanimity on the part of the assessors on both sides in order that there may be a reference of a dispute from a Council of Conciliation to the Court of Arbitration. This is a mistake. It is undesirable that the time of the Arbitration Court shall continue to be taken up, as it has too often been, with the settlement of points upon which, through the exercise of commonsense and the application of tact, an agreement should be reached in the Conciliation Council. It is not less undesirable, however, that any ground shall be allowed to exist that would as much as give colour to the complaint that the workers are denied the right of access to the Arbitration Court. It may be reasonably urged that the provisions of the Bill concerning the reference of disputes to the Court are so rigid that they might conceivably, in circumstances which should not arise, close the doors of approach to the Court and even, through obduracy on the part of the assessors in particular interests, lead to the cancellation of existing agreements. The opposition that was offered to this portion of the ’ Bill in the Lower House was, of course, not reasonable. It was violently vituperative and was charged with imputations of bad faith and improper motives on the part of the Government. It was clearly not conducive to a fair-minded consideration of the terms and possible effect of the proposals contained in the Bill. It seems simply to have hardened up a determination on the part of the Government to secure the passage of its proposal in the form in which it appeared in the measure. The serener atmosphere of the Legislative Council should provide the conditions in which the provision of the Bill concerning the reference of disputes to the Arbitration Court may be dispassionately considered with a view to its being amended in such a way as will bring it into conformity with what may be held to be the prevalent opinion in the community on the point. If it might be assumed,, moreover, that women workers were, by reason of the comparative weakness of some of their organisations, likely to be prejudiced through the change that is contemplated in the law, public opinion would support the extension of special protection to them. Concern for the welfare of the women workers, or of all workers in the community, is not confined to the Labour members of Parliament. But there is no reason to suppose that the belief, real or affected, that was expressed by them that the passage of the Arbitration Bill will be fraught with the most serious consequences is at all widespread among the industrial classes. The workers know that the employers are generally just and honourable people from whom they may expect a fair deal, and they know also that the influence of public sentiment will always be exerted against any section of the public that would deliberately iqflict a wrong upon a less powerful section.