HAS IT FAILED?

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 17, 21 January 1928, Page 10

HAS IT FAILED?

ARBITRATION SYSTEM SCIENCE CONGRESS TALK PROF. TOCKER'S VIEWS (United Press Association.—Copyright.) (Received 21st January, 2 p.m.) HOBAKT, This Day. The Science Congress has ended. A tentative scheme for an interchange of lecturers between America, Australia, and Japan was announced to the education section, and it was suggested that New Zealand might be asked to co-operate with Australia. The proposed period of exchange was two years. Professor Tocker, of New Zealand, during a discussion by the economic section of the merits or demerits of the arbitration system in Australia and New Zealand, said that unemployment in New Zealand had been very severe in the last two years, partly owing to the depression caused by a heavy fall in export prices, and it had added force to certain criticisms of State regulation of industrial relations. Last year a Bill was introduced by the Government to amend the law, but protests from both the employers and trade unions caused most of it to be withdrawn pending an inquiry into the operation of compuTsory arbitration. He went on to outline the salient points of an inquiry into the net material production of New Zealand. He said that at least 70 per cent, was primary production for the export trade. The unions as a whole had enrolled only one-quarters of the wage-earners of New Zealand. These were inrgely in sheltered industries not meeting oversea competition. The system of compulsory arbitration was almost confined to manual workers in sheltered industries, but the standards laid down tended to become the standards for many employments beyond the immediate seopo of the Court, and the farmers found that they had to give similar rates and conditions. The Court had adopted a cost of living basis and had a stereotyped standard of living. It had not succeeded in preventing strikes, partly because certain militant unions chose to remain beyond its scope. The Court operated over part of an industry where it was not required to prevent industrial strikes, but failed to operate whore it was most required for that purpose. It had fostered unionism rather than mutual agreement. Professor Tocker thought that the disappearance of sweating and the improvement in conditions generally was due to an increase in prosperity rather than to the Court. A critical time had come with a fall of 20 per cent, in prices in the biggest export industries. Professor Fish (New Zealand) said that the arbitration system was to some degree responsible for the higher cost of living, but it would be risky to make drastic changes in industrial legislation in Australia and New Zealand, where the system of arbitration was so firmly established. Mr. Malcolm Fraser, New Zealand Government Statistician, said that the object of arbitration in the Dominion was to increase wages.