The Star. MONDAY, NOV. 28, 1892. The Industrial Conciliation Bill.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 7431, 28 November 1892, Page 2

The Star. MONDAY, NOV. 28, 1892. The Industrial Conciliation Bill.

Phe Industrial Conciliation Bill, which vas carried through the House of Reprelentativeß, was rejected by the Legislative Council, the Committee of the latter body aaving refused to come to terms with the Managers o£ the former. As the Bill will be again introduced, and, no doubt, passed in the House next year, it is worth while recalling the objections taken to it by its opponents, especially as those objections were remarkable for their extraordinary inconsistency. No one pretends to oppose the principle of conciliation being applied to disputes arising between employers and employees, but whatthe opponents of the Bill objected to waß chiefly that principle being made compulsory. The experience of the half -holiday which we have just gone through shows hot? undesirable it is to leave the application oE a principle to the good sense of those whom it affects. Through the omission of the legislature to fix the day, there is very great danger of the principle being sacrificed. And there can be little doubt that a conciliation Hill with no compulsory provision would, practically, be a complete failure. Such, at least, has been the result in those Colonies where a similar measure has been made law. For the principle is not a mere "fad" of the present Government. Its assertion dates back a quartet of a century in Australia, some j seventy years in Great Britain, and a ! still longer period on the Continent of j Europe and in the United States. During the discussions in the House of Eepresentativeo, the Hon W. Eolleston led the Opposition against the provision that a Judge of the Supreme Courb should preside over the Courts of Conciliation, yet it is difficult to understand how anyone less likely to be biassed in favour of labour could be appointed. Had the objection been taken by tbe Labour representatives on the ground that Judges, as a rule, are taken from the more wealthy classes, and are accustomed to associate with people who claim some social position it would not have been so surprising, but that the leader of the Conservatives should raise such an objection drives one to suppose that ha objected simply in order to obstruct, and to prevent the decisions of the Court of Conciliation having that weight which the fact of its being presided over by a Supreme Court Judge would undoubtedly give them. Sir John Hall boldly declared that his chief objection to the Bill was that it was an attempt to drive workingmen into Unions. In this Sir John was, no doubt, giving utterance to the real sentiments of all the opponents of the Bill. Nothing does your true Conservative dread more than any combination among the working classes. A Bill that encourages: combination must be fought against at every point. Sir John denounced "enforced arbitration," as if arbitration were an unpardonable offence. He admitted that " masters in many cases press men unduly both as to the extent of hours and the rate of wages, and men are too weak to hold their own against such masters unless they have the assistance of their fellows," and yet he opposed a Bill which would substitute a legal and regular method of settling disputes for the objectionable and exceptional process of strikes and lockouts. Sir John deprecated the "unwise combinations " of a few years ago, and yet opposed a measure which was intended to obviate the necessity for such combinations in the future. As we have just eaid Sir John Hall declared that tbe Bill was an attempt to drive the working classes into Unions. Mr Buckland, who opposed the Bill just as uncompromisingly, declared that it would tend to the "disruption of Unionism." The same gentleman said the Bill " can do no good and it may do much harm." As he dissented from Sir John Hall on one point, co the Hon Captain Russell dissented from him on another. Captain Ruesell said, " the Bill can do no harm and may do some good." Moreover, this gentleman went so far as to say that the Court of Conciliation should have power to enforce its decisions. In fact Captain Russell was the moat effective supporter of the Bill, combating with great skill the objections raised. For instance, to the objection that Unions alone could avail themselves of its provisions, he replied, " So long as the arbitration is confined to employers and to Unions, you have on each side an organised and recognised body, both of which can be compelled to conform to the decisions of the Courts." The admission here made by the hon gentleman is worth noting. He admits that employers are organised, and his admission is an eloquent apology fo j the existence of Unionism. j