OUR "CO-OPERATIVE " WORKS SYSTEM.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14758, 30 August 1913, Page 3

OUR "CO-OPERATIVE " WORKS SYSTEM.

« AN OPEN LETTER TO THE PKIME MINISTER. Dear Mr Massoy,—There is probably no department of Government in which there is more scope for reform than in the carrying out of public works under tho so-called co-operative system, and the action already taken by Mr Eraser, as Minister of Public Works, should go far to justify your assumption of the title "llc-fonn" Government. Tlicro can bo no doubt that many thousands of people throughout Now Zealand must have hailed with delight tho courage and determination Mr Fraser has shown in undertaking so unpleasant a task. But ho knows better than to expect anything else but depreciation and obstruction from tho party that is responsible for tho maintenance, of the system for so many years, in spito of general condemnation. When Hercules returned from the cleauiny of the Augean stables, was ho not derided becauso he had not curried olf the girdle or the queen of the Amazons, or brought the- golden apples from tho garden of tho liesperiiies, or brought up Cerberus i'roin llaaes —ho was, ot course, .afraid of the clog! You must not be surprised il your Government is treated to similar jjibes. For many years tho system has been regarded as a public scandal and disgrace by people wno are capable ot taking a dispassionate view ot tho subject, and their condemnation has been mainly based upon three grounds, namely —that (as Mr Fraser says): "'it allows good men to bo exploited for tho benelit of the ineiheieut lazy men," tiiat it has a demoralising eiiect_ upou tho men generally, and that it is tho most waste) ul system that could possiby be invented. Mr Frasev seems to lay most stress upon the iirst ground, but they have all "been proved over and over again, not only in Parliament, but in the Tress throughout tho country, it would bo impossible to conceive a graver condemnation, and it is difficult To imagine any defence being set up by any person not influenced by political bias. As yon aro aware, tho subject was referred to in tho course of tho debate on the Address-in-Repiy by one of tho Socialist-Radical members of that motley crew of "Liberals"—Radicals, Socialists, Syndicalists, Anti-militarists, and Anti-patriots who constitute the "Liberal" Party. The speech seems to have gained for the orator considerable kudos, and as a specimen of the stuff that passes nowadays for Liberalism the passage dealing with this subject is worth quoting. Hero- it is:— Iho most humanitarian" of all tho benevolent measures that Mr Seddon and Sir Joseph Ward passed into law was the ono that provided for the creation of the co-operative system of railway construction, under which any and every man in need was furnished with employment and paid by measurement the fair valuo of his toil. ' That law has been destroyed in order to re-establish tho system of contracting profits, and we may expect to witness a epcedy return to the pernicious and undesirable practices of keen competition' and sweatin^/ . When you had the privilege of listening to this deliverance in the House, you cannot have failed to notice that tho orator simply ignbred tho objections that havo been raised session after session, and tho overwhelming evidence in support of them. lo describe a measure as "humanitarian or "benevolent"- or "democratic seems to be sufficient justification for it, no matter what tho actual or probable consequences of it may be. !"?««> l don't ktiow any better wnv of differentiatins; the Socialist-Liberal from the truo Radical, than to dosenbo tho former as a politician who considers it necessary to liayo regard to tho probable-' consequences of measures, whilst the latter simply shuts Jus eyes and says, "Oh! dnmn tho consequences. It has boon snid by a French writer_ that "Charity causes half tho suffering it relieves, 'but that it cannot relieve half tho"snirring it causes," and there is reason to fear that some humanitarian" 'measures cause more and creator evils than they cure. It would bo difficult to conceive the possibility ■of any measure producing greater evils than those that have been attributed to tho co-operativp system; and it tno orator's description of it is correct when ho calls it "the most humanitarinni o> r>ll tho benevolent measures that Mr Seddon and Sir Joseph /ard passed into law," ono wonders what the others must bo like. Is it any wonder thai, in a country so besotted as ours tswrli sham political "humanitarianism ' ot this kind, tho arm of■ statesmushrp is paralysed, that tho Governor's Speech and the Financial Statement ft 10 described by Liberals of tnis kmJ :«s bi <l and barren because you and' your colleagues scorn to inako use of these documents for the ignoble purpose of deluding tho people with meaningless phrasea and glittering generalities of tho kind which they havo been led to expect year after year! Why "our orator should have bracketed Sir 'Joseph Ward with Mr Seddon as being entitled to the Credit of this most humanitarian of all benevolent measures it is difficult to understand. I feeJ sure Sir Joseph Ward never r!ai:rerl any share of it, for nobody knows better that the co-epcrative system was Mr Saddon's very contribution tothe policy of th» Hallnnce Government, just as the Lands for Settlement scheme was John McKonzie's. Sir Joseph's contribution ivns tho Advances to Settlers system, and it is. but bare justice to him to pay that, whilst ns a project it was considered tho most risky, ns a tried and tested policy measure it has proved the most successful: beneficent it certainly has proved, but I doubt whether its author would f'-el flattered if any ono described it as "benevolent."' It may bo worth while reminding our orator that tho koy-worrl of politics should not bo Benevolence but , Justice; a Government cannot bo benevolent or cvon

;*ood, it can simply be just; 'for a t> ovornment can sncrfie: , nothing. If it attempts to be kind as to tJit> property and interests of others in one case, injustice roFiiHs in other crimes, nnd '■Justice demands thai one sot of interests shflll not be snerficod to another.

As regards the co-operative system, then. Mr Sedrlrm ivas entit! , '! to fay. as the Knight said to Al'oo. "It's mv own invention. ,, nnd he wac as proud of it rs the Krrght. was of the fryina-pnn of hio own invrnt : nn that luing from hs rnddJe —nnd with .is nine!) en us-. How proud ho was of it is shown liv t'm fnl--li>w!iiK sentence from his PuMie. \\'ori\S Strsf-errent of ISO I:—"An ;irti<>!e in explnnat'nn of thf> «vstem hns be r -n prepared by th« Umler-Spcrrtnry for Public Work- - ;, nnd will rrpear in the next i=-<;iie of 'The New Zealand Oflicinl Year Honk.' Con : r<! of this article will bo rent to Etiglnnd nnd elsewhere, and the Government confidently pxp r ct to hear of the scheme being largely Adopter] in the carrying out of public works in other countres."

The system has never, so far ns I am mr.ire. been nrlopted in Knglnnd; but .ill those of the AtiPtrnhnn States in which the Lnbnur-Saeinlists have succeeded in securing control of th" Go-

vernment — that is. all except Victoria —-have, unfortunately for themselves. tried a system of day-labour rel"f work* sornowh.it similar to oitrs. Heferring to Victoria. I find in Mr Soddon's Stateirent of I?fl2 th<> following sentence: —"I hnvo receive communications from of Vie f 'r'a. ml Tain T'von to understand thnt the eooneratvo : sv=ten! has now been intro-•]i!,-xi >'n th" cnnstnictieni of public

~-r.r?:s in thn.t Polony."' The Victorian Government did, I understnnd. give '.lie pv«te-m of dny-lnhour a trial, hut. if so. it mist have born discarded r>r ; or to 1903, for I find that in that year the

luspoctor-Gcnoral of rublio Works writing on the subject soul: —"lleieronco is made to a statement b.v -Mr Catani that sorno work carried out by this Department by day-labour cost 50 per cent, more than contract price. . . - I also reported on the matter, and had to admit an excess of 40 per cent. . . . Payments we.ro not made at a fixed rato per day, but for piece-work, the prices for which gradually enlarged from something approximating a fair contract to extravagant rate?. At a late period the system was abolished, and the work completed on iinall contracts at more reasonable prices, but still in excels of lair contract rates. . . The contract system may be accepted as thoroughly established for Government works in this State, and to be unlikely to undergo any change. I haro no doubt- as to its advantages over the day-labour system for Government work* when it can bo employed, which may bo assumed to bo at least on nine-tenths of Government construction operations. The fact that, the contractor makes his profit, or should do so, is far moro than compensated for in the savings of supervision. It also obviates tlunecessity of Government investing suras in* plant. . . 1 do not think it possible to eliminate 'Government stroke , on Government works. . . 1 am sure a tendency to laxity or 'tnkirtg it easy" . . . would become the rule."

To show how thoroughly Mr Davidson's conclusions are justified has only to refer to t-ho results in South Australia and West Australia, and the man-on-the-job scandal in connection with certain works carried out quite recently by the Commonwealth Labour Government. Taking South Australia first, wo find the Commissioner of Public "Works stating quite- recently that tho men engaged on certain "drainage works at Port Adelaide were doing 20 per cent, more than they had been doing under the regime- of the Verran Labour Government.

My information regarding West Australia is sorao years old, but it is very striking:—"The Premier has Riven an j unqualified condemnation of tho principle of the Government carrying out of public works by day labour. Ho said that after a year of experience lie realised that it was hopeless even with the best officers and men to put into work which was supervised by tho Government, that push, that go, and that vim which were absolutely necessary to the successful carrying out of any work." Since then a Labour Government has got tho upper hand in' West Australia, and tho wasteful system condemned by Mr Rawson has probably been restored. What has eomo to bo known as the mnn-on-thc-job scandal in connection with certain works carried out by tho Commonwealth Labour Government is so recent that you probably know more, about it than I do. The men were receiving- nine shillings a day, with payment for all wet days on which they commenced work, and yet tho state of matters was such that tho Government refused to produce for tho information of Parliament the reports of their own. inspectors! One of tho reforms now being carried out by tho now Liberal Ministry is the, sweeping away of the system that has led to such scandalous waste. But New South Wales is the real home of this rotten system, for it was flourishing there as far back as 1832, under the See-O'Sullivan Ministry. At an enquiry hold in that year by tho Public Service Board, an.engineer of tho Public Works Department had the conrago to make this statement: —'The labourers generally in New South Wales have been demoralised. They have been so proppod-tip and so assisted that I do not think they will ever go back to tho labour conditions when a man knew he should give a fair day's work for a fair day's pay." The result was that New South Wales got the reputation of being tho most spendthrift. Stato in the British Dominions, and tho Government finding it impossible, to borrow any longer, was .constrained to appeal to private enterprise to take- off its hands tho swarms of men for whom it could no longer find employment. Since thon Now South Wales has had a period of good eeasons, high prices, and easy borrowing; a Labour Government in power and the same wasteful method of carrying out public works and with what resuits? A deficit of £1,233,385 for last year. And ac a consequence, tho Government finds it impossible to raise money by borrowing in the usual way, and enters into an arrangement with "a firm of contractors in London for the construction of railways to the amount of £3,000,000, the firm finding the money, a motion of no-confidence moved and, let us hope, one more LabourSocialist Ministry consigned to limbo.

A few years ago Colonel Jarvis, of tho Canadian Department of Agriculture, in giving his impressions of New Zealand after spending a month amongst us, is reported as liaving expressed surprise, at the slow progress of our railroad undertakings. When ho was told of tho ti'mo occupied on somo_ of thorn bo could not contrasting them with tho construction of a 2500 : ni31e line_ in Canada—7oo miles of it orer exceptionally difficult country full of engineering difficulties—a task that was completed in five years! Ho courteously added that "he presumed that those in authority here had their reasons for the. methods adopted, but ho questioned tho wisdom of t!:e policy." It would seom that the j Colonel cannot have discovered during his holiday that our system of railway construction is a system of relief works. "The most humanitarian of the many benevolent measures intro.ducod by ilr Soddon and Sir Joseph "Ward," and therefore the most benevolent in the world; that the benevolent authors of this system, with the view of distributing: their beneficence- as widely as poseiblo amongst thoir subjects, carried on about twenty-five railways at the fame time in various parts of their dominions, and t'nat in order to ma bo the work Inst as long as pessibx?. thov made a point of not 00111----p!eting more than atxmt two or threo miles of any one railway in a yc-ar, and in one they hn<] surcoctled in spending £145,000 in the construction of three miles of railway and in spreading tho work over six years! Th«» •Colorel cannot harp been aware that our Public Works Department was n br-nevolent institution, and that our roil way construction was earned cut O'i the mast approved humanitarian and equah'tarian principles which require thnt every man in need shall have a ri'jlit to work provided for him br the Government, and thni the efficient r. _ orkn7fln and the lo;>.fer inurt Tt««»iv(» as nearly as possible efiu;il ]>ay. as t' is is tho only way in which competition ai:d sweating can bo prevented and every man can got a square coal!. However, true nil this may be, you would probably find that, as a means of training political kudos, shorn'"humanitarian" legislation is better thon the best administrative reforms, and consequently the temptation must be very' great to forget the wise rule that, if it is not xiece.'sriry to Jegislat", it is m-ers-.«ary not to legislate. Nothing wru'd better please a disgrunted, irresponsible Opnofition suoh as you have to deal with than that thoir gibing and jeering shouM drive you into proixKr'ng fome hasty social, or industrial l'.:'s'ti- rt;on, for ihf worse it was the better they would like it.—Yours. ft<\.

J. MACr,!>KGOII T>unedin. 26th Au«uit, 1913.