ARBITRATION BILL

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 1, Issue 169, 10 March 1932, Page 4

ARBITRATION BILL

The Government's Arbitration Amendment Bill, the provisions of which are so drastic as to make it extremely difficnlt ! to gauge fully their implications and possible effects, seems to ! be meeting with. as mixed a reception within the Coalition Party ; as it has outside the House. Following complaints, which were j denied at the time, that the Government had not taken its supporters into its confidence, as it should have done, before the measure was brought down in the House, a joint caucus of the Government Parties was held on Tuesday. This was subsequently described by the Prime Minister as a "happy family" meeting, but the very vague terms in which Mr. Forbes couched his statement somehow convey the impression that he was at least as anxious to reassure himself and his Ministerial colleagues as anybody else. This impression is strengthened by subsequent comment in political circles. "Happy family" or not, the meeting seems to have been far from unanimous in its attitude toward the measure. The belief is said to be held by many Government supporters that the Ministry does not appreciate the amount of opposition to the present proposals. Keeping in mind what has so far been said in defence of the Bill, it may without unfairness be asked whether members of the Cabinet really appreciate the full meaning and possible effects of its provisions. It cannot be denied that the arbitration law as it at present stands is far from perfect. It bristles with anomalies; it frequently operates unfairly and prejudicially to the best interests of both employers and employed; it is in many respects inflexible and so incapable of meeting the rapidly changing conditions of times like the present, and it unquestionably is at present havirig a restrainmg iniiuence oh enterprise. On the other hand the New Zealand arbitration system has proved itself in the past a very valuable aid to industrial peace and harmony. It has provided a workable basis for negotiations between employers and workers and it has in no small measure protected each, not only against the unreasonable demands of the other, but also against the undesirable activities of extremists on their own side of the table1. The worker, having had at his command a workable means of negotiation with his employer, has been able, as a result of the f eeling of security the system has given him, to see the destructive agitator in his true colours, while the decent employer— which is to say the very great majority— has been protected from the unf air competition of the conscienceless sweater. A system which in normal times has proved thus workable must not be hastily scrapped. In abnormal times, such as the present, it is, inevitable that its weaknesses should be emphasised, perhaps even that new weaknesses should appear. As a matter of fact the system has failed in some respects under the gruelling test of the past year or so, chiefly as a result of inflexibility and, like the victim of other sorts of catastrophy, it needs skilled medical and surgical treatment. The treatment at present proposed is, however, extremely drastic, so drastic, indeed, that those who are doing the doctoring and have written the prescription should be reminded that in the best medical and surgical circles decapitation is not usually considered a satisfactory cure for an injured limb.