Page:Life·of·Seddon•James·Drummond•1907.pdf/263

 It was the compulsory clauses in Mr. Reeves’s Bill that were assailed with the greatest vigour when the measure was introduced. Hardly any exception was taken to the Conciliation Boards, but the Arbitration Court was regarded with something more than dread. “Who but a lunatic,” demanded one member of the House of Representatives, “would invest money in an industry in this colony if that industry is to be subject to the verdict of an irresponsible and presumably incompetent tribunal?”

Expressions of that nature found a ready echo from many members. “This legislation,” they said, “will not tend to the conciliation of the classes, but to their estrangement.” “The object is to resuscitate and re-establish unionism.” “The Bill has been introduced at the dictation of unionists and under their guidance, and disastrous results must follow. It will throw back the cause of labour and of conciliation. It will bring about fresh strife and trouble. It will be the death-knell of unionism, and of the proper representation of the industrial classes in the struggle that will always exist between capital and labour. It is not conciliation; it is coercion; it is monstrous; it is a mischievous thing; it is a sham.”

In the Legislative Council there were drawn up five “Reasons” why the compulsory clauses should be struck out. It was held that Courts of Arbitration, with compulsory powers, were not so likely to effect a settlement of an industrial quarrel as were Boards of Conciliation; the power of inflicting fines given to the Courts in the Bill seemed to be quite unsuitable for the settlement of trade disputes; Courts of Arbitration without the power of enforcing awards would resemble the Courts of Conciliation provided for in the Bill, and would, therefore, be unnecessary; there was reason to believe that the Boards of Conciliation would be more successful in the settlement of disputes if no Courts of Arbitration were in existence; if voluntary Boards of Conciliation did not go to the root of the conflict between capital and labour there was no likelihood of Courts of Arbitration, armed with such unsuitable powers as the infliction of fines, doing so; therefore, the Courts were not needed.