Three times Mr. Reeves prepared a complete and comprehensive Bill. Three times he withdrew it, twice in disgust at the manner in which it was mutilated by members of the Legislative Council, whom he, in a fit of tartness, denounced as “a little handful of domineering nominees.”
In 1892 and again in 1893, the House of Representatives passed the Bill with the conciliation and arbitration clauses complete. On both occasions the Legislative Council cut out all provisions dealing with arbitration. But compulsion was Mr. Reeves’s standard of faith, and rather than see the measure become law in a mutilated form, he reluctantly moved for its discharge from the order paper. The result of the general election in 1893 convinced the Legislative Council that the measure was desired by the country, and in the session of 1894, when it was submitted to the nominated chamber for the third time, the constitutional practice was adopted, and opposition was offered no longer. The Bill was passed with its compulsory clauses complete, but, although it was then placed on the Statute Book, it did not come into force until New Year’s Day, 1895.
The scheme in operation has wholly fulfilled the anticipations of neither friends nor enemies; but it has justified the opinions of the former much more than those of the latter.
It was thought by its originator that most of the work would be done by the Boards of Conciliation. The Court was to be merely a stand-by. The powers given to it were so far-reaching that its constitution was regarded with fear, and it was thought that only in exceptional cases would its great powers be exercised. In 1894 Mr. Reeves said: “I do not think the Arbitration Court will be very often called into requisition; on the contrary, I think that in 99 cases out of 100 in which labour disputes arise they will be settled by the Conciliation Boards.” He also, evidently, placed his faith in the Boards, which were to be the main part of the machinery. In the following year, 1895, however, after he had had a few months’ experience of the attitude adopted towards the Act by a section of the employers, he modified this opinion and pointed out that the Boards were not an indispensable part of the scheme, as the Act could be worked without them.
