ARBITRATION IN AUS= TRALIA.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 120, 13 February 1908, Page 4

ARBITRATION IN AUS= TRALIA.

, "NOT GETTING A FAIR RUN.'': ' ' ■INTERVIEW WITH MR, S. BROiVN; ' Mr. Samuel Brown, the employers'-! representative on .tho 'Arbitration Cburtof Now Zealand, returned ' from, a trip";, to: Australia by tho Marama yesterday. ' Ho-informed'a Dominion, representative .that ..-tho'; New'-Zea-land Arbitration'-'Aot ! was - immeasurably superior in many ways'to the' Act they were' en-; deayou'ring to " administer in' Ne'-iv"-Soutli Wales, and they .were,'aSjiste'd" in their work by..mean's that 'did'pot'exist 'in''Australia? . : We/have *:a' system' of inspectorship in forco; ; iri" tho'•Dominion' wiiich ' lias 'itljo' best of results, and 'tljese' inspectors seo-ftliat 'tho awards of the Court aro cairfi^'.out to', tho letter. ■ IV. is'- this system . of' inspection' by officials: of: the Labour Department who institute niost; of tliij cases for' breaches of award. It is open to'tho TJnioii affected to act similarly, but it is .usually left, to .'the . inspectors; Vi'lio aro good nicii, who know their business,. ■ and do "it iri, a straightforward manner' without exercising unduo harshness.'' ■'■Mr. Brown did not caro to express a hasty decision; with respect to arbitration in New South'- Wales," but . he did not think' it been .'givdn' a fair trial'"'"'in , thatiStii'to; ■ -Arbitration," ho says, .'' cannot., bo considered a; successful factor iii our economical government .unless tho' men entrusted with *ts. administration have a ,wido ; business' and :, technical experience. They : may. got .experts to give evidence, but our experience in, Now. Zealand lias been; thatsiioli peoplo are biased ono way or tho'other .''As' tho .'result' of this wo have been forced,to rely upon ourselves, and' the' experience that both' ,Mrl Slater and myself have acquired in our business careers has .always been :at.the service of tho Court. Tliert wo go further-by'por-'sonally and frequently; visiting, factories' and. works-to oxtend tbo.scopb of our' understand-' jng,and this, has been of immense help, to us in our deliberations. '■,•■' , ' nr"i so " rc ° ofl ' trouble in' New South Wales is that tho Court has. gone beyond ks powers under tlie Act, iri'd has had its ludgmenks-appealed -against.., Wo liayo nover had that in New Zealand. '. It .was tried about soven years, ago'to.upspt' a. judgmont of.'tho Arbitration Court,, but .without, success. -.'As--a matter: of fact, ,wd have the' power to go to tho Appea Court and .isle for a; decision •where. a doubt',.exists, so., that, really,:our ■judgments have; .in -some .jnstaucesi'/tho strongfcu of an Appeal Court backing." . ;Uttwude administration .-the great, differenco-between the New South Wales and' the New Zea and Acts was that :no attempt - boon, made to amend the .evident defects 0 " n u 1 'u U r- nS }^' 1 ® seven' -years' of , its i suilered from:political - influoncos. - rho Government;' it; .seemed, . had: not stood by its Act or. its Court- as t-ha Dominion had done by insisting that.the dictum'tho Court, should bo..upheld.-' \w V 1 0W ?•? u u n ? U P, b y f sa ying.. that tho: New; Zoaland Act. has been fairly- successful during the twelvo years of its existence, aud ilf-'it li ■ there was now mo'ro. confidence iu it than over before. ' • '• ;WhUe at" Kewpastle. ho" had a iong interwX« WI A !+ U P tho New South ales Arbitration Court, when the; essential fn&Wr - ; tW ° A °' fcs "f"?; discUssed -