INCOMPATIBLE IDEALS.

Evening Star, Issue 19723, 25 November 1927, Page 6

INCOMPATIBLE IDEALS.

Australia beginning to realise that, though a nation may have a perfect right to arrange its own affairs, it caiinot live unto itself. Following tho drastic curtailment of the operations of tho Broken Hill Proprietary Company’s steel works, Lysaght’s galvanised iron works at Newcastle are closing down next month because cost of production is so high that oversea competition cannot he met. In the past such moves have been regarded as a hint to the Tariff Board that a higher tariff is needed so as to avert the list of unemployed being lengthened. But in view of the Tariff Board’s very outspoken warning a few months ago that such a process has already brought Australian industry to the brink of disaster, this preventive is unlikely to be applied. The nature of the disaster is this: the value of total production, instead of rising, has fallen; exports are falling; and imports are increasing. The reason is that in Australia (and not in Australia alone) then* is an idea that tho Government can maintain an arbitrary standard of living, and Australia is trying to reconcile two incompatible ideals. On tho one hand she proposes to establish industries that will be able to compete in the world’s markets, and on the other hand she thinks she can maintain' a standard of wages and conditions in those industries far superior to the standard in rival industrial countries. For a time the position can be bolstered up, but even in an underpopulated country, blessed with considerable natural resources, tho ultimate consequences of a breach of economic law cannot bo escaped. One of tho first symptoms is that an' underpopulated country takes on the appearance of being overpopulated, for the “ hot-housing ” of local industries attracts people from country to town and then leaves them stranded, so that many Australian towns can display unemployment figures not to be equalled in the towns of older countries whose density of population is infinitely greater than Australia’s. It is a moot point whether much tho same tiling does not apply to Now Zealand. The difference is that no New Zealand Government has gone to tho protectionist extremes of the Commonwealth tariff. But wo have gone part of the way. Tho danger which threatens our local industries has been half-heartedly provided against in clause 19 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill now before Parliament. It provides: “In fixing in any award the wages, allowances, or remuneration of workers employed in any industry, or the prices to be paid therein in respect of such employment, the' court shall Lave regard to a fair standard ‘of living, but shall take into account the economic and financial conditions affecting the industry to which tho award relates, and trade and industry generally in New Zealand, and ail other relevant considerations.” It is quite conceivable that the Labor Opposition will contest this clause, in spite of the object lessons both from New Zealand and, more particularly, from Australia, that it is futile to try and ’■econcile two incompatible ideals.