1.—9.

34

[j. JACKSON.

was that there might be some small unions in existence which would feel that they could not send three representatives from their ranks to such a Council, or, rather, they might feel there xvouid be an element of danger if they picked them from their own ranks. 152. 1 made provision for that by putting in a clause stating that under certain conditions the Government could appoint some other member of the trade to represent them. I was thinking of women's unions?— Yes. 153. But as a general principle they xvere to be members of the trade who were to sit round the table ?—Yes. 154. Very strong exception has been taken to the clause in this Bill providing that where a man refuses to pay the penalty imposed on him we have the right to folloxv him from place to place?—l reckon you have that right. If a penalty is imposed on a man he should pay it, just the same as in a judgment of an ordinary Court. 155. You xvere against the Blackball union in xvithdrawing its funds from the bank and distributing them amongst a dozen members, so that there should be nothing available for the Crown to get?— Yes. 156. You are also aware that distress warrants have been issued against the men who have property to distrain upon, and you knoxv xvhat steps were taken by the men at Blackball with regard to that?— Yes. 157. A suggestion has been made that, so as to avoid going for the individual penalty as at present, there might be a scheme devised by xxhich so much per quarter should be subscribed breach member of the union to form a guarantee fund to be lodged xvith the Public Trust Office, to stand as a reserve fund to meet any penalty imposed which a member of the union did not pay, and which could not be withdrawn so long as the union was registered and was working under an award of the Court?—lf a member of the union did not pay a penalty imposed under the Act, then the amount xvould be taken from the guarantee fund, and the union would afterwards collect the amount from the member ? 158. Yes?— That xvould do. The unions are pretty good at collecting moneys from members. 159. Then following a man from place to place would be obviated altogether?— Yes. 160. In the case of an employer he has always something that can be distrained upon, but xvith an employee it is different. The Government do not want to have any imprisonment provided for such cases, but we want an effective means of enforcing a penalty, and in this scheme the money xvould be guaranteed practically? —Yes, that seems reasonable; but, of course, I could not give a decided opinion about that. 161. It is an alternative scheme to the other one proposed?— Yes. 162. The Chairman.] Would you make any discrimination, in levying the fine on a member of a union, between a married man xvho may have some trifling household gear and a single man who could evade payment by clearing out of the district?—l should say so, decidedly. A married man would be confined to his district, and would have to pay the fine in any case, whereas a single man could leave it. I should say a single man xvas able to pay a greater proportion of the fine than a married man. 163. You have no idea of any method by which this could be effected?— No. 164. Hon. Mr. Millar.] The Wages Attachment Act covers both alike. They are free up to £2 a xveek, xvhether married or single?— Yes. Tuesoay, 4th August, 1908. George Thomas Booth, of Christchurch, Implement-manufacturer, examined. (No. 9.) 1. The Chairman.] Whom do you represent here? —Well, I suppose I am representing the Employers' Federation, but I do not mean to commit, them to every opinion I express. Some of my opinions I take my oxvn responsibility for and do not wish to spread the responsibility beyond what the Federation itself may desire to shoulder. 2. You xvill be careful to differentiate between what you say on behalf of the Federation and your own personal viexvs? —I think you may take it that I represent my oxvn personal views, but generally speaking I think they may be taken to represent the viexvs of the employers. 3. Have you seen the printed Bill of this session?— Yes. 4. Will you tell us what you think of its provisions?—ln my opinion—and I think in this respect I can speak for the employers generally—the Bill is evidently the expression of an earnest and sincere desire on the part of the Government to deal effectively xvith the question of industrial conciliation and arbitration, to strengthen so far as possible the weak places in the existing Act, and to make its provisions equally effective as against both of the parties concerned. Whether the proposed Bill will be entirely successful in that respect or not is a matter of opinion, but at any rate xve are fully prepared to give the Government credit for the best of intentions. The history of the Arbitration Act and its various amendments from year to year are, however, I think sufficient to make one feel considerable doubt as to the success of the proposed amendments. If I refer in more general terms to the history of the Act I hope you will not think, Mr. Chairman, I am wasting the time of the Committee; but I xvill try and bring the matter up to a point as shortly as I can. At the very inception of the system, fifteen or sixteen years ago, I suppose, it was pointed out that the compulsory clauses embodied in the original Act xvere little better than a sham and a delusion. It was quite clear that in the final resort the common-sense of the community would revolt against the proposition to lock up a body of men in gaol for declining to xvork for xvages which they deemed to be insufficient, or an employer for declining to carry on work in his factory against his will—if, for instance, it would mean carrying on such work at a loss