THE ARBITRATION ACT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume LIX, Issue 9933, 1 August 1908, Page 2

THE ARBITRATION ACT.

ATTITUDE OF THE FARMERS'

UNION

WaNT ITS REPEAL. .M

A resolutiou.; ; passed'by the Wellingtou Provincial Farmers' Union, at its atiuual meeting, was in the following torms :—

"That in view of the failure of the Conciliation and Arbitration Acts to prevent strikes, and the unfair and weak manner in which they are administered, it would be iv the best interests of everybody concerned if these Acts were repealed or amended."

The motion was moved, ou Wednesday afternoou, at the New -Zealand Farmers' Uniou Conference, by Mv D. Jones, of Weedou, North Canterbury, to whom the duty was delegated by the Wellington delegates ou account of his. close connection with the operations of the Conciliation Board and the Arbitration" Coiut in his district.

In moving the motion, Mr Jones said lie did not argue in favour of imprisonment for those who broke awards; ho knew that would practicable. But he kuew that -'flpss there was the alternative of inflicting imprisonment when any law was broken there was no surety of enforcing it, and therefore he was in favour of abolishing the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. It could not; be enforced except by imprisonment; it was useless to say that it could bo done by fines. A man could not be forced to work against his will. The, Hon J. Millar'had said it could be done by making the mau's next employer collect the fine; bub liow much would be the worth of labour given under those circumstances? It would be ,iust as cheap for the employer to pay the line out of his own pocket afc once, for that was what the result would work out at. The only real remedy would be to ship such men out of the couutry. If the Government went ou in thoir present spirit, it would be well for the farmers to take up an attitude of passive resistance; and, if necessary, break the law sufficiently to force the Government to either mend the Act effectually or to abolish it. As to Dr Findlay's proposal for institution of an exertion wage, the system was of no iv many callings. Besides, Dr Fimilay stipulated that it should not be brought into operation nuless all parties agreed to it; and what was the use of that when leaders of labour iv New Zealand were preaching the damnable heresy — the term was strong, but not too strong—that work was degrading, and the less a man could do of it'tlio better men would .be? Iv effect, the Unions were saying they approved of arbitration without, any penalties. (Laughter). He reI gretted that Mr Millar had failed to carry out his promise to get legislation passed for suppression of the paid agitator, aud he made a further remark that a Cabinet Minister who had condemned the paid agitator in such terms as Dr Fiudlay had done— "a man who lived by strife, who was ! one of the worst friends labour had got, and who was a parasite upon labour"—and had failed to suppress them, was grievously failing in his duty. The whole system was an economic fallacy, aud "it was bound to go. It would be better now than later, aud this Conference should move for the repeal of an Act which was a curse, aud, as Dr Findlay put it, au industrial calamity (Applause). He referred iv of strong coudemuatiou to tiie ddeposition of Mr Andrew Collins as Conciliation Board member aud labour oi- ,- gauiser. Such a tlnug would shake auy confidence that might have been felt iv the system. If the farming industry was brought under the Act, rho maiu'iudnstry of the Dominion would be hampered, aud disaster would follow. "Sweep the Act away," was his suggestion, and then something better could be built up."

Mr Hockley, of Huuterville, who prefaced liis remarks with a compliment to the Canterbury farmers for the stand they had taken in the matter of the farm labourers' demands, contended that the experiences of the last few years had proved that the Act had not been fair in its incidence, and had operated unfairly as between the men and their employers. Mr McQueeu (Southland) expressed his joy that the conference was at last coming round to the views lie had so often enunciated in past years. The idea of doing away with sweating was behind the Act, when it was first passed, and that idea was most commoudable; but the minimum wage was never intended to be thiyMfcidard wage. There should be onljPshort time given to tins discussion, for they were threshing out straw that there was no grain in.

Mr Leadley said that the recent experience of tlio Canterbury farmers showed that thero was something to be gained by offering a determined resistance to unjust demands made under the Act. The Arbitration Act; was one which attempted to bring together things that were diametrically opposed, aud it was a proved failure. The spirit of the Act was the spirit of the old dominie who read to his boys the text "Love one another," and then enjoined on them the need to observe the commandment or get flogged as an alternative. Such a system was foredoomed to failure, aud both town and country were suffering from arrested development to-day jks a direct consequence of the hampering action of the Arbitration Coui't awards, and the threat of further movements of like nature. People would not risk their capital or expend their energies under present conditions, and good grain-growing land was going into grass as a dircet resnlfc of this—thus becoming much less productive, and causing a diminution in the revenues of the Dominion. Mr J. Beastou (Hastings that labour had an equal rigrK to protection with the farmer, and he doubted whether labour had got any benefit from the Act. It had benefited nobody, so far as Mr Beastou had been able to observe. It could bo shown clearly from the labourers' point of view that no benefit had been done to the labourer, aud lie failed to see how any one could be fouud, now, to argue in favour of the infernal thing

Mr Matheson (Eketahuua) thought; it would be well to add to the motion an addendum showing that tho Union was in favour of adopting some such scheme of conciliation as that which was now in operation throughout Canada. They should not run the risk

of being looked upon as being adverse to any system of conciliation. Jhe Arbitration Act, however, was doomed, aud he thought the surest sign ot that was the iieglect of Mr W. 1. Eeeves to come back to New Zealauri and fight for it. Mr Reeves nitroit, aud he not ouly couvinced / jßrljiaineut. but himself also, of its practicable nature. The speaker was quite sure that Mr Reeves, as father of the Bill, would have come back to fight for it if he had thought there was the least hope of reviving it. Mr J. Flanagan (Auckland) said lie had read Dγ Findlay's famous speech ou the industrial situation very carefully aud with a great deal of pleasure, but lie had to say that no' was somewhat sceptical about Dr luucllay's boua fides ou this aud every other matter. (Loud laughter). The Presideut of the Conference (Mr J. G Wilsou) said that Mr Justice Sim, Presideut, of the 'Arbitration Court, was showing strength ot miud, aud ho would not like it to he thought for oue moment that tho Conference was in auy way objecting to the administration of the law by Mr Justice Sim. or eveu those who sat with him. (Hear. hear). A fairer-minded, better man for the position the speaker could not There had beeu some lately over the semliug to Mr Sim of certain resolutions passed in Cauterbury, but the speaker was pleased to have from Mr Leadley au assurance that these resolutions wore sent to the Judgo by mistake, instead of to the gentlemen for whom they wore really iuteuded. Mr Evans (Kaiapoi) contended that what was asked for in Canterbury would put the farmers into serious trouble if it was granted. He weut ou to mako an attack upon the workers' representative ou tho Arbitration Court, who (according to Mr Evans), previous to his apuointmeut to tho ► Keuch, had stated 'that he had no words to express his contempt for the farming community, and he would "make"them sit up." How could the farmers he expected to have confidence iii a Court elected or constituted as this oue was, when it sat to judge tho farmers' case? Mr Bell, of Hamilton, Auckland, said that the Arbitration Act must go. If he thought there was auy chauce of its being amended, he would be only too pleased to assist, but those meu (the Government), bound as they were by their former associations, sjSlb afraid to touch it. •Mr E. Maxwell, of Opuuake, said that labour had derived no real benefit from the Act, aud no benefit had come to the manufacturers. The latter class, however, had adopted the remedy of raising prices. There was no such remedy available to the farmer; he hail to take the prices ruling in the world's markets, and consequently he was the one who had to bear the whole brunt. It was unanimously resolved as au end to the discussion: — "That it would be in the best interests of New Zealand if the Act were repealed." It was proposed to drop all remits couceruing ueed for amendment of the Act, but this proposal did not meet with unqualified support. It was contended that while the unanimous condemnation by the Conference made clear its opinion on tne Act, there was no likelihood that, the present Parliament would act upon it; and, that being the case, the Conference should consider the remits which

suggested means of improving tne Act.

It was, finally, unanimously agreed to abide by the oue resolution, au attreal by Mr Matlieson (to be allowed tiJßbve a motion favouring the substitution of something on the lines of Canadian conciliation) being shouted down. Mr Matlieson then gave notice that he would move to this effect at a later stage of the Conference.