ARBITRATION.

Hokitika Guardian, 9 October 1923, Page 4

ARBITRATION.

DOAIIXIOX SVSTEAI

on.] iXTIOX-S dealt with. A L CKLAXD, October 1. X'ew Zealand's arbitration system ’■'•as discussed by Air Justice Frazer in an address at the monthly luncheon of the Chamber of Commerce. Healing with soma of the objections which had been jaised against: the Xew Zealand system. Air Justice Frazer said t -at the most prominent argument of its opponents was that it invaded the sacred British right of freedom of contract. It did. but that same right had been invaded by British law time and time again. It had also been contended that the tight of property had been invaded by the system, but the law interfered with the freedom of properly all the time. Xo one bad any absolute rights in private property, for if they did not pay their land tax and the rales and taxes, what rights they had would go. A not her point made by opponents was that, the Act had taken a nay the only effective weapon of the workers, the right to strike. A union leal ike right to -trifle, however, provided that was its only weapon, out if the State gave it an effective suli-li-iuie that would settle its difficulties in a just. ami reasonable manner the union bad no right to lew]. The same applied to employer.- in regard to lockouts. It had keen asked why should the State mterlete in private property iprurel- between employers anti their men. AH went back to the old Homan saying. •'The well-being of the public a- e. whole. Let that lv the overruling law." That van the justification I'm the New Zealand system of arbitration. ’I lien it had been, declared that the system would increase disputes by creating machinery i"r them. As a matter of fil'd, the system had almost altogether got rid of the strike by the Court being able to take hold of a dispone before angry feelings could cause a strike or a lock-out. Opponents of ih,, system had said that so long as wages wipe up and conditions were good the system would be all right, hut that as soon ns wages went down the system would fall. The answer to thin was licit in the la-i three years Xew Zealand bad pa--sod through a most serious pel iod and there Ion! never been a suggestion t hat the sy-lem should be scrapped. This country experienced far fewer strikes and serious disputes in pioportimi to its industries and population than any other part of the world. 'l'he experience of the Court was that collective bargaining had come to stay, and was a good thing in itself. Ai r .1. \\ i .mall, a l.aboui member cf the Biilish Barham,ml and one of the Overseas Immigration delegates now vi-iting tickle mi. -aid lie had been interested in the iptcstinn discussed by .Mr .Justice Frazer for years. In fact, when he knew very lit lie about the system lie used to advocate it. lu Britain. however, it had hitherto been rejected. The nude: lying objection to it there was that it robbed thr? British worker cf the right to strike. He had been present, at a silting of the Arbitration Court on the previous day. and had been much impressed, by the care, patience, ami desire to get at (he facts displayed b\ the I’roshleiit and bis colleague-. So far a- hi- personal observations had gone, however, said Air li igra i. lie found that Au-tralia and New Zealand Inn! not- abolished tom brutal arbit in men l of strikes and lookouts. As a general nriimiile be thought-

tiie New Zealand system would be of benefit to .nil concerned in Great Britain if they could only Kef rid of the feeling that they were to ho controlled by a judge. The change to compulsory arbitration would, he feared, he too much of a shock in Britain at the present time, lie had protested against the Whiteley Councils at Home because there was no finality about them. There could never he conciliation if hath parties to a dispute went to a Council determined to get all they wanted. The Whiteley Councils meant wrangling and haggling, mid finally breaking un with, nothing done. They

were dying out fast, and very few were now leit.