Evening Post. SATURDAY, AUGUST 31, 1940. A FORGOTTEN PARTY?

Evening Post, Volume CXXX, Issue 54, 31 August 1940, Page 10

Evening Post. SATURDAY, AUGUST 31, 1940. A FORGOTTEN PARTY?

The discussion in the House of

Representatives upon a clause empowering the Court of Arbitration to fix shop-closing hours served a most useful purpose by drawing attention to the existence of a third party — the consumer or user of services— who is sometimes forgotten in industrial, disputes and industrial legislation." Concerning the particular purpose of the clause, the Minister of Labour stated that his information was that a very large- section of shopkeepers in different towns had joined with the employees in asking for such a law. That explanation in itself revealed the weakness of the proposal. Shops exist primarily to supply the wants of customers. Customers do not exist to provide trade for the shops or work for the employees. It is surely anomalous, therefore, that a provision which may have far-reaching effects on the consumer should be brought into operation without reference to the third party who should be the first party. The Minister of, Labour did not make the position better when, in withdrawing the clause and stating that it would be embodied in a later Bill, he added: "It had been definitely promised, and that promise would be honoured." Does this mean that, before consulting Parliament, he had promised that legislation would be passed—thus deciding a matter which only Parliament has the right to decide? Apart from the objections raised to the clause on the ground that it might be read as empowering the Court to fix the half-holiday or otherwise deal with questions covered by the Shops and Offices Act, a general objection was stated by Mr. Schramm. He pointed out that' the general public were not repre-1 sented before the Arbitration Court.; Employers and employees stated their respective viewpoints. "But there was no one to put the point of view of the public, which, after all,, carried industry. I think there should be some official appointed to, put that point of view." Mr. Barnard raised a similar issue when he inquired the effect of repeal of a 1 provision requiring the Court to consider the convenience, ol the public in the district. Although he was making no charge against, any particular Judge, he said, the practice seemed to have developed of the Court feeling that, if an arrangement was' made that was fair and reasonable as between employers and employees, the whole job was done. Consequently the House frequently found itself in difficulties because the interest of the consuming public was not always safeguarded. Farmers have often complained j of the neglect of their interests because they have no opportunity to state a case as a third party. As producers in a largely unsheltered industry, they must pay ultimately when costs are raised, but because they do not pay immediately, and directly they have no standing in a dispute. In this disability they are on the same ground as the consuming public. Farmers and consumers must pay—in money or in inconvenience—but too often the charges are fixed and the conditions laid down without full consideration of their views, much less consultation with them. Admittedly it is difficult to arrange third-party representation before such a body as tlie Court of Arbitration, but that is all the more reason for care in adding to the questions which are to be decided under the conditions that often rule in the settlement of industrial disputes. Where strongly organised sectional bodies, with particular aims in view, are interested mainly in securing those aims, it is not surprising if the wishes of an unorganised, unrepresented party receive less attention than is rightly due to them. Unfortunately the inconveniences and costs arising from industrial awards are not the whole of the price exacted from the consuming public. With organisation of sectional interests of all kinds there has crept into our economic system a wrong conception of the rights of the majority. It is seen in numerous ways: the earlier closing of small suburban shops because their late closing would be "unfair competition," overlooking the convenience of the later hours to housewives in the evening; the elimination of deliveries of goods, though this may mean much wasteful travelling by shoppers; deprivation of the public of ample supplies of some product, the growing or processing of which has been started in New Zealand. Too often, when the Government does take a hand in the regulation of such industries, the interests of the consumers come not first, but last. The point for first attention is not, as it should be, that supplies should be increased and prices lowered, so that more people may buy more. Ralher the price to the grower and

the profit to the trader receive first consideration. In practice, though much is said about production for use and not for profit, there is a growing tendency to limit the meaning and scope of service. And those who have had most to say in criticism of the profit system are often in the lead in seeking to curtail the measure of service given. If this continues to be the spirit guiding "service," where is it to end ?