The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1931. ARBITRATION COURT.

Southland Times, Issue 21578, 16 December 1931, Page 4

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1931. ARBITRATION COURT.

While the Government made clear the faet in the recent election that some amendment to the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act was contemplated,, it was also definite in its statements that the Arbitration Court would not be abolished and that awards would not be suspended. Those declarations, made many times, stand as limitations on any action the Government elects to take, and they must be construed as expressing in spirit as well as in letter the attitude of the Government to this matter. For that reason Mr Parry is right when he says that the Government has no mandate for any amendments that will render the Act or the ' Court abortive. The mere fact that the Government did not disclose its plan in detail places a restriction on it, because its few remarks, negative in character, must be interpreted as the substance and not as phrases to clothe the situation or deceive the electors. Mr Downic Stewart has not added much to public knowledge of the Government’s proposals, but he is wise in saying that the suspension of awards will not help the farmers. The suspension of awards would be welcomed by the militant unions, by the extremists, because it would open the way to industrial strife, and so shake the confidence of the moderate unions that they would move over to militant ranks for protection. Industrial strife is the last thing this country wants, and if the Government provokes it by any action contravening the spirit of its solemn declarations it will invite the condemnation it will richly deserve, and by destroying the confidence of the moderate unionists open the way for the installation of an extremist government when next the electors are given an opportunity to express themselves. There is nothing more potent in provoking retaliation than power misused, and the Government must move warily because it is office with what appears to be a blank cheque. The phrase “compulsory conciliation and voluntary arbitration” has an unsettling ring, and if it involves the suspension of awards or the termination of awards in some round-about way the fruits of this scheme will be more costly, more shattering to public confidence than anything done under the industrial legislation in this country during the last forty years. The fact that the present system has been in vogue does not make it sacrosanct, but it does justify the view that any radical change should not be undertaken until it has been fully discussed by the people most directly interested : the employers and employees. Unfortunately the obstacles in the way of a sane discussion of these laws are the fruits of years of antagonism, and the inability of those engaged in the business, on both sides, to approach the matter without recollections of that antagonism. The Labour Party has been at fault in opposing stolid objections to any move in the shape of wages adjustments. It has refused to recognize that adjustments in a downward direction are as necessary as adjustments upward have been in the past,

and that the rigid conditions which are now’ blocking employment are bad for the worker. Many men, loyal to unionism, can see that changes are necessary in the light of altered economic situation, but the leaders of the movement stand obstinately against any change. Their rigidity is a challenge to the Government not to go ahead brutally, but to devise some means by which this opposition can be pierced or circumvented so that the real body of unionism may have a chance to declare the extent to which it is ready to go to meet a temporary need, with satisfactory safeguards. This is not an easy matter. The Arbitration Court has been functioning for many years and it has become an integral part of the country’s industrial system. Clearly the system lacks flexibility, but that does not justify any action which will render it abortive. The Labour Party and the unions have not made any attempt to secure a non-political conference on this matter, and in the absence of any demand by them, the Government should invite a conference. Nothing can be gained by opposing rigidity with rigidity, but there is every chance that a nonpolitical discussion will provide a better understanding on both sides. To-day the problems are difficult and the position is serious, but the future must be considered as well as the present, and the amendments to the Arbitration Court system will be judged by the results they produce in the future. The Government has no mandate for 'rendering the Arbitration Act abortive, and the Labour Party has no mandate for a muleheaded refusal to recognize the facts of present-day conditions and for a blanket denial of any effort to mitigate the evils of the present law. So far the Labour Party has shown no readiness to assist, and the country’s disinclination to return the party to office, in spite of ils obvious discontent, should be to the leaders of that party a clear indication that the country expects it to be more reasonable and more intelligent in dealing with present day circumstances. The public expects something in the nature of co-operation, and it will condemn extremism on both sides. Mr Parry is right in saying the Government has no mandate to render the Act abortive; let him look nearer home and decide if the electors have given him and his colleagues a mandate to go on being the stiff-necked doctrinaires they have been up to this moment.