Mr. ROLLESTON ON LABOR QUESTIONS.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XX, Issue 2339, 31 January 1893, Page 2

Mr. ROLLESTON ON LABOR QUESTIONS.

The fall report of Mr. Bolleston's speech reads maeh better than the telegraphed precis would have led one to expect. His remarks on labor questions, though not new. are certainly interesting. On these questions we must pay we fear that the measures of the Govern* ment are primarily conceived in what are believed to be the interests of a olasH, the most numerous class in the community. It may be it is thought that if the particular class referred to are contented and pleased, their condition will react on the community, and beget £ feeling of hope and confidence and prosperity. Ministers, we doobt not, are quite honest »pd quite in earnest ; whether rfchey ara entirely wl&a is another question. 'Now, Mr. Bollestoo dealt with the question at considerable length, and bis views are at aoyrate entitled to consideration, because if we judge him aright be is not less honest, and certainly is not lesi experienced, than any member of the Ministry. Twenty years ago, he says, be was one of the first to introduce a labor bill, of which the present Factories Act is an amendment. In these twenty years there have been great advances* and Mr.

Bollestoo freely admits (hat " so man is worthy to be a pablio man who does Dot realise that the voioe of the working man baa to be recognised, and that it is going to have a much more potential inflaence in the government of the colony than has been the case in the past." The bon. gentleman's position seems to be this : There are these two great principles at war — first, the principle of laisser-faire, "let alone," individualism, the rigbt of every man to do the best he can for himself ; second, the principle of State socialism, of the State doing everything that can be done by the State. The idea of the one Bohool is that the individual should be left to do all that it is possible for him to do ; the idea of the other is that the State should interfere with the functions of the individual wherever it sees an opening. Now, Mr Bolleston recognises that the day of high-anddry Individualism has gone by ; that the State has a right, nay, a duty, to interfere to protect the weak, as in the instance of passing laws for the benefit of Bailors, of workers in factories and mines, and for the education of the young. Bat he fears a rash to the opposite extreme of unnecessary State interferenoe. He invokes John Stuart Mill, whose dogma he quotes : " The burden of making out a ease rests on, those who recommend Government interference. Letting alone Bboald be the general practice. Every departure, unless for 1 some great good, is an evil." " The fact if," Mr Kolleston says, " we are working' oar way from precedent to precedent, 3 seeing where the State can oome in with advantage. The real evil has been the adoption of one side of the question as a class cry by tbe apostles of the new Liberalism." And that is just tbe fear of a great many people who are willing to advance at a reasonable pace. Political cries are raised often most vehemently by thoße who have thought least, and tbe risk is that we may have the State rushing in interfering where there is not the least need. It would not be difficult to find instances already of regulation necessary in large towns, but inapplicable to tbe country districts or small towns, and yet indiscriminately applied to all merely in obedience to a cry from tbe cities. Dealing with the eight boars question, Mr.Rolleston pointed out that at Home, where there are large masses of population affected, even tbe workers cannot make up their minds in respect of the wildom of Parliamentary interference. It is a question to be settled by the tradeß themselves, because economio difficulties occur, questions affecting tbe very existence of trades, and to force a settlement by an Act of Parliament must bring upon the authors ot the Act the responsibility of settling tbe economic difficulties that may result. Parliament can say that no man shall work more than eight hours, but a greater force even than Parliament must be invoked to injure to a man the earnings of ten hours for the work of eight. So Mr. Bolleston says let it be a matter oi mutual consent on the part of employers and employed, because Parliament cannot legislate to suit the varying circumstances of all. Then he went on to speak on the Industrial Conciliation Bill from the same point of view. In connection with this bill he said " the Bame vice of forcing legislation in defiance of economio considerations appeared." "It was rather a Coercion Bill than a Conciliation Bill. It ignored the principle that those interested can best Bettle disputes on economic grounds. I am in favour of a Conciliation Bill. The prinoiple is, as I think, a good one ; but we must; not go ahead k of |vhat we can see would be beneficial. If the bill had passed as it was brought down it would either have been a dead letter, or it would have prolonged the Btrife between employers and employed indefinitely. It formed a kind of State Board instead of, as in England, Trade Boards. In New South Wales a Commission was appointed, which adopted the idea of a State organisation, instituted by and clothed with the authority of the State. That gave our cwn Government tbe idea of establishing State Boards instead of Trade Boards. I think that is & mistake. Compulsory arbitration in respect of wages and a number of subjeots • would fail in attaining its object, and the penalties would fall very unequally. The bill if passed would have deterred the investment of capital in industrial undertakings. It wonld not compel men to work for less wages than they chose. It could not make an employer ke9p going at a loss. I think that we should not put on the Statute book any provisions which cannot be enforced." It seems to as that there is a great deal of point in these criticisms. Men cannot by Aot of -Parliament be compelled to work for less wages than they consider fair ; nor on the other band can masters be compelled to pay more than their balance sheets will show they can afford to pay, and a compulsory arbitration act which cannot enforce its decisions is a man-of-war without gune. Yet tbe evil is that especially in the large towns a certain section of tbe community demand this legislation, and it is this class wbich ha 8 the greatest influence with a majority in Parliament now. How long the fever will last oannot be prophesied, but it may be accepted that the more tbe whole question is discussed tbe more clearly will tbe difficulties be seen, and the moral of tbe whole thing ib " Hasten slowly."