Evening Post. FRIDAY, APRIL 16, 1920. OLD BOTTLES AND NEW WINE

Evening Post, Volume XCIX, Issue 90, 16 April 1920, Page 6

Evening Post. FRIDAY, APRIL 16, 1920. OLD BOTTLES AND NEW WINE

The idea of a national conference of employers and employees—originated in New Zealand by the Federation of Labour, and adopted, in an almost destitute condition, by the Welfare League—has been taken up in Australia by Mr. W. M. Hughes, Nationalist Prime Minister, and formerly Labour Prime Minister, author of "The Case for Labour," and guiding genius of the. Sydney watersiders. Coming, afc a time when NewSouth Wales has just elected a narrowmargin Labour Government of reputed sanity—a Labour Government ■whoso Premier, Mr. John Storey, equally repudiates the dictation of the Employers' Federation and- of the Sydney Labour Council—Mr.- Hiighes's initiative- is important industrially, socially, and politically. From the brief cabled notice of the subject- it would seem that .the fiooial-industrial purpose is, in gen- I eral, industrial peace- and harmony, and, in particular, revision of the Arbitration Act. So the Australian conference bids fair to be full brother to the proposed New Zealand conference, with this exception : that in Australia the Government appears to be already in action, and in New Zeaknd it is still awaiting pressure. In order to provide the latter ■factor, the Welfare League is sounding employer and employee organisations, ■which, if they are wise, will support the convening of the .conference. For while such a meeting may much improve the industrial situation, it cannqt possibly, render it much worse; the conference will cost relatively little, and it may buy a great deal in the way of preventing or mitigating wasteful unrest. Whoever obstructs a free conference is faced with the onus of explaining why heshould not-be classed among the irreconcilable?.

For years there has been a marked distinction between the Arbitration Courts of Australia and of New Zealand —a distinction affecting the whole scope of an industrial court's iisefulness. • The New Zealand Court has fixed wages, ■hours, and ito some extent conditions, but has seldom or never given reasons. The Commonwealth Court has not only fixed wages, hours, and conditions, but has discussed and has sometimes ia-id down ■in its judgment broad equitable principles, amply and brilliantly reasoned out. Generally the New Zealand Court has worked within the narrowest possible radius, the radius of the ,trade and of established standards; consequently its output has been mainly schedules. The Commonwealth Court, on the contrary, has been given, or has given itself, elbow room; has taken stock of the economic and sociological situation; and has produced deep-toned human documents, worthy of the best judicial traditions. Only by stages has the New Zealand Court been brought into direct contact 'with the qost of living; its evolution is still not abreast of all the essential factors of the economic equation; and slow as that evolution has been, it has probably outrun already .tile legislative basis on which the Court was originally organised. How much of the blame for this narrowness is due to the limited conception of the legislators of 'the Seddon period, to the piecemeal nature of •modern amendments (which have spread the branches of the tree without considering the trunk), and to'the conservatism of the Court itself in interpreting or exercising its powers, we are not concerned to (decide. But certain it is that industrial jurisdiction in New Zealand can point to nothing equal to or even resembling the Higgins and Heydon judgments. both the Australian and the New Zealand Courts were wiped out to-morrow, only the former would leave 'behind it any worthy contribution to the social-industrial literature of its generation. While both institutions may (or ■may not) be classed by posterity as failures, on a basis of comparative failure Now Zealand will certainly be iplaced on a lower rung of the ladder, not only for achieving less but ifor.not attempting more. In a situation in which complete success was practically impossible, leniency may surely'be shown to the agency that did its best to command that success, rather than to the agency which aimed at little and accomplished less. .. /

This comparative reference has been imade not with invidious intent, but for the purpose of emphasising the point that if the time has arrived in Australia for overhauling the Arbitration Court, a .conference with a similar objective would certainly not be premature in New -Zealand. As a matter of fact, the time is ripe, and over-ripe. Our impression, voiced above, .of the gap between the Australian and New -Zealand Courts is confirmed by' Mr. A. L. Monteith, a trade union secretary who has had.'much Arbitration Court experience, 'and who is able to speak with still greater definitrfiess of the shortcomings of the system and practice followed in this country. In an interview last week with a representative of The Post, Mr. Montejth stated :

In my opinion the [Arbitration] Court dug its own grave by becoming » Court of precedent, instead of a Court of industrial investigation and justice. New times demand new measures. A Court bound by precedent cannot settle satisfactorily an industrial dispute, because in the industrial field conditions change w quickly and so thoroughly. Unions have prepared their cases with all the care possible, ami have biought the best brains to boar, but have not secured the reform desired, nor are they told by the Court "why!" The Court does not, Jsj out, in a judgment its reasons. In AusIrabu, tfcs Coiirfs of Arbttwitan 'BJ''l! judgments, setting gut the reasons tot

their decisions. In some cases judgments tako up as many as twenty closely .printed pagea. Often in Now Zealand the Court will issue a memorandum stating that it has arrived at this or that_ decision, but as for its reasons for so doing "silence reigns supreme." So unions seldom gain a desired reform, and never know the reason why the decision has been given against them. Anyone knows that you cannot convince either person or Court, if you do not know the other's point of view.

Mr. Monteith ' adds that the Court, although asked to do so by unions, has never exercised its power to set up boards of industrial investigation-; and the President : judge's practice of being Judge as well as President has limited the Court's own time for investigation; consequently this important branch of industrial work, has been neglected. In New South Wales, on .the other' hand, an industrial commission of ten members, under, the presidency of Mr. Jus^ce Edmonds, has lately, after special investigation, given a judgment under which the lowest-paid unskilled worker of New South Wales is entitled to £3 17s a week, which is 7s higher than the lowest New Zealand .award. At the same time Mr. Monteith contends that the cost of living in New South Wales is lower than in New Zealand.

Mention of the cost- of living raises the statistical question. After what has been heard lately from the Government Statistician concerning three food groups plus rent, and from Professor Murphy concerning the much greater rise in imported articles, it becomes necessary to lay down as definitely a-s p6ssible the basis and method of the statistical calculation that is now becoming the mainspring of industrial courts' awards. If practicable, uniformity should be secured in this respect with the Commonwealth. After defining the cost of living calculation, the question will arise (1) whether the rate of increase in that cost shall also be the minimum rate 1 of increase in wages; and (2) whether it shall be the maximum rate of increase in wages. The significance of the latter part of the question is shown by the following argument submitted by Mr. Monteith :

The■ Arbitration Court in New Zealand has only been prepared to grant to thfi workers the actual increase in the cost ol living,' and such increase, has been computed in a most conservative stylo. Should not the worker receive more than a. living wage in prosperous times? The worker is the.first t<; eufffir in bad timps. Surely he should' be the first to benefit in good times. By tho action of the Court, and actions speak louder than words, it is apparent that the Court is not prepared to give 'anything over and above tho cost of jiving. I may state that all the Judges in Australia havo l&.id it down as a right and proper filings that in prosperous times all in the community should benefit. Personally I hold strong views, and believe that the workers should be the first to benofit. To my mind it is ridiculous that they should not bo given anything extra whatsoever.

The further question of course arises whether the ascendingl, scale of wage .(whatever it is) calculated on the risingcost of. living should be accurately ■ reflected in a descending scale of wage calculated, on a falling cost of living. The principle clearly cuts both ways. .

Mi. Monteith has submitted a piece of pure reasoning free from cant, rant, and playing-down to class-consciousness. This is the sort of reasoning needed at such a conference as is proposed. It stands out in cheerful contrast with the embittered polemics usual to the propaganda of the Reds. Also, it substantially reinforces the movement for rational reform of the industrial relation-