The Dominion MONDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1923. THE REGULATION OF INDUSTRY.

Dominion, Volume 18, Issue 11, 8 October 1923, Page 6

The Dominion MONDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1923. THE REGULATION OF INDUSTRY.

No one who has followed its operation will claim that, the New Zealand system of industrial arbitration is perfect. It is obviously open in some ways to amendment, and there are directions m which it might advantageously be extended. Imperfect as it is, however, the system is better than anything that meantime could be put in its place. It undoubtedly confers benefits on workers, employers, and the public —probably in that order, however, rather than by the absolutely impartial regulation of industry which is the ideal to be aimed at. It imparts a degree of stability to industry, which could hardly be attained at present in any other way. In many countries, during the last two or three years, widespread wage-cutting has given rise to serious industrial strife. In New Zealand the arbitration system has done a good deal to assist a less troubled return towards normal conditions. It must be recognised that in these years of after-war readjustment, industrial arbitration has been tested rather severely, and on the whole has borne the test in a manner to encourage those who regard it as a beginning out of which much greater things may develop At Auckland the other day, the President of the Arbitration Court (Mr. Justice Frazer) maintained in effect that under this test the system of industrial arbitration had been vindicated. Opponents of the system (he ob served) had said that so long as wages were up and conditions were good t he system would be all right, but that as soon as wages went down tho sy» tem would fall. The answer to that was that in the last three years New Zealand had passed through a mo?t serious period, and there had never been a suggestion that the system should be scrapped. . The last-quoted statement is a little too sweeping, there are in the Dominion some root and branch opponents of industrial arbitration, notably the leaders of the Alliance of Labour. These people proclaim their desire to overthrow the Arbitration Court and destroy the system it exists to administer. To all appearance, however, the Court is supported by * large proportion of the employers and workers of the Dominion. It is opposed and attacked chiefly by organisations whose leaders base their authority or appeals to ignorant class ltmay be hoped that these conditions affecting a section of the Labour movement and continued also in the outlook of some employers, will tend to dis* appear as popular education is more effectively extended. In this country industrial arbitration may reasonably be regarded as an established institution, and one from which increasing benefits will be derived as experience extends. We are m. a position already to laugh at-views like that taken by Mr. G. K. Chesterton when he said some time ago, that “compulsory arbitration with the present unequal division of property was the institution of slavery.’ How far Mb. Chesterton was serious does not greatly matter. By giving an extreme fdm to the arguments of those who oppose compulsory arbitration he” has in any case made it easy to perceive the fllisnrclitv of these . - , . -. There are as good reasons for extending the system of industrial arbitration in the sphere of human activities to which it applies as there are for giving comprehensive effect to the principles of law in the life of civilised communities. Industrial arbitration of necessity embodies some features of compulsion and involves some invasion of individual freedom and privilege. As much is to be said, however, of any development of law, and of any remove from a state of pure If Mr Chesterton’s contention were sound assuming always Ihrt 't is a contotion noi a jesl-it have to assumed that human freedom has been dwindling ever since primitive “en in some remote epoch took some early and rudimentary steps in social organisation. That, of course, is an exact inversion of the truth. S The opponents and critics of industrial arbitration speak of compulsion bSJhe system can only stand where there is an acceptance by agreement of the opportunities of common benefit arising out of a peaceful regulation of industry. At the stage to which it has been carried in this country, however, the system represents meiely a is sten towards better conditions of industry. tiep , S to P3 •» the sabstitiition tof friendly '/ffered'fXeohtog opportunities in this direction, which they might cultivate actively with great benefit to themselves and to the whole community. — - ■ ■ ■—