Auckland Views on Arbitration.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19178, 8 December 1927, Page 8

Auckland Views on Arbitration.

In a further examination of "the "general problem of arbitration and "the functions of the Arbitration " Court," the Auckland Star on Monday "observed" that we had again reproved it for its "obstinate adher- " ence to ' highly artificial interferences "' with the natural laws of industry.'" It then referred to "an interesting " communication on this subject" which appeared elsewhere in the same issue, and which, it said, " reminded "-The Press and those who share its "views that such arguments [as it "seemed to think we had advanced] "carry us back a hundred years to "the long-dead days of laissez-faire, " when factory legislation on behalf of "women and children was denounced " as sinful, and any attempt at " ameliorating the lot of the worker "was regarded as an impious defiance " of the will of Providence." We think the Star means to suggest by all this nonsense that we are opposed to any and every attempt to secure industrial peace by legislation; and if that were our attitude we should certainly not think it necessary to apologise for it If it seemed to us that industrial peace is not brought nearer by legislation, we should say so, and not think it "rather late in the day to air such " views in a democratic country." But it is either very stupid or very dia-

I ingenuous of the Star to suggest that we want industry to be absolutely free. We want it to be free of the Arbitration Court because experience has shown that the Court does more harm than good, but we have never once suggested that if the Arbitration Act were repealed no further action would be necessary. The Star knows that we have again and again advocated an extension of the Labour Disputes Investigation Act to the whole field of industry, and that if this took place employers and employees would both be subject to quite drastic restrictions as often as they threatened to make trouble. We object to the Arbitration Court not, as the Star and Professor Belshaw in their sanctimonious way suggest, because it helps the worker, but because it is not helping him, or helping anybody, after thirty years' trial, and we do not care where such objections carry us in the history of economic thought if they are sound. Even Professor Belshaw does not say that they are unsound, but only that they are not " capable of exact " proof."