STATE REGULATION OF INDUSTRY IN NEW ZEALAND.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20354, 10 March 1928, Page 22

STATE REGULATION OF INDUSTRY IN NEW ZEALAND.

By J. MacGrkcok, M.L.C. 111. " The more things are changed the more they remain the same. I ' French Aphorism. It appears from the first article that the similarity between the method of conducting industries prevalent in Australia and in Zealand is not accidental, but causal, and it will appear from the present article that there is a striking similarity in the outcome of the two systems. The writer has the good fortune to be in a position to avail himself of a remarkably clear description of the results of the working of the Australian system, published a few weeks ago in an English magazine. The industrial position in Australia to-day is one of chaotic confusion; in two States there are wages boards in operation; two others have their own arbitration courts; New South Wales has an Industrial Commission armed with extensive powers; and South Australia has a somewhat'similar institution. All these tribunals are constantly engaged in arranging and rearranging relations between employers and employees with a view to maintaining industrial peace. With the possible exception of Russia, no country in the world at the present time enjoys so elaborate a system of State wage-regulation and judicial control of industries as Australia. Nearly ten out of every hundred persons in the Commonwealth now have their salaries or wages prescribed for them by arbitration courts wages boards, or other such tribunals designed for the purpose of maintaining the Australian workers’ vaunted standard of living, or settling industrial disputes. , Their success in achieving this latter object may distinctly be questioned. might be quoted showing an appalling Joss in time and wages, as well as diminished wealth reduction, resulting from the incessant industrial disturbances which have occurred in the Commonwealth during the last 25 years, and in four out of six States serious strikes are now (in 1927) hampering industry. Of the moral effects of the system much might be said, and abundance of evidence could be adduced in support of • the general conclusion that those effects have been unmitigatedly evil. Among them may be mentioned the growth of ill-feeling between the two great classes engaged in industry which, though natural friends and partners, are treated by the law as irreconcilable enemies. By completely disregarding the elementary fact that a high standard of living demands the maintenance of an equally high standard of efficiency, and by awarding on the same liberal scale, remuneration to all members of the union without making any distinction between the deserving and the undeserving, the industrial tribunals have discouraged ambition and a wholesome spirit of emulation among workers, sharpened their cupidity, fostered extravagant habits of living, and weakened the will to work. Since the unions refuse to-accept any system of payment by results, “ goslow ” practices have become prevalent everywhere.. Legal discrimination between organised and independent workers, to the disadvantage of the latter, has produced a dangerous cleavage in the ranks of labour itself. The restoration of freedom to industry is as necessary to the moral regeneration of Australia as to its material welfare. The article quoted above was written by one of the leading publicists of the Australian Commonwealth',, and' dlie quotations are made for the purpose of showing the remarkable similarity between tile working and outcome of State-regu-lation in Australia and in New Zealand. The comparison could be carried much further because it so happens that in both countries similar politico-industrial crises have arisen, almost at the same moment in both countries, as appears from the fact that in both the Prime Ministers have found themselves in the position of having to convene a conference of members of Parliament and representatives of the various interests concerned, for the purpose of considering the industrial situation. It will be observed that the similarity appears, not merely in the cause, but also in the occasion for the convening of such a conference —the fact tnal in- each case the Government was face to face with an impasse in Parliament with regard to a Bill designed for the cure of certain of the evils of the system, and that in each case the situation has arisen from the tardy and reluctant realisation and recognition of the fact, that tinkering with consequences could be carried ho further, and that the time had come when underlying causes must at last be faced and dealt with. That the causes and consequences are similar and almost identical in both countries appears from the facts stated in the preceding articles. In the first it has been shown that in New Zealand the cause was the departure from the principle of the Reeves Act—conciliation; and in the second it has been shown how this was brought about—by the domination of unionism of the perverted and degraded kind created by the system, over pliant and blind Parliaments—pliant in the hands of a masterful personality, and blind to the nature and probable consequences of the alterations they were making in the system—alterations devised by a thorough-going Socialist appointed to the position of official head of the Labour Department by the author of the Act. Although our network of legislation •« not quite so complex as the Australian, it has been, and still is. such as to produce a network of vested interests for the protection, not of the industries, but of the network. Compulsory unionism, the inevitable result of preference to unionists, has had the effect of placing at the disposal of a few union bosses great funds which ar e largely, perhaps even mainly, used for political purposes. So complete, indeed, was the transformation of the system within 12 years after its adoption that a sort of Labour Parliament, representing the unions created under the Actj was invited by a Federal Labour organisation “ to consider in committee and advise the councils and unions of the colony upon the underlying principles of the Act, and generally upon the effects of its operation upon unionism.” And this from an organisation whose members, only a few years earlier, had declared faith in the system to be a part of their religion ! Alas for th e religion ! —and, alas ! too, for Mr Reeves’s masterpiece!—a masterpiece of which any man might well have been proud. So complete, indeed, was the transformation that one would almost suspect that some enemy had deliberately set himself to disfigure beyond recognition its leading features in order that he might claim it as his own. Within about five years the Ac*-, as a means of promoting conciliation, had been rendered absolutely futile and doomed to failure—a fact that was quite commonly recognised, for, in th e next session of Parliament, the conciliation provisions were practically repealed. Indeed, it had become quite clear that as a means of promoting conciliation the Act had not been taken seriously by the bastard unions, and the process then began that has resulted ’in the state of things that has led to the present impasse. By way of justification of the reference above made to the deleterious effect produced by the system upon the workers, it is proposed to make some reference to statements made by leading men in the Labour movement. Here, for example, is a passage from an article written a good many years ago by one who is now one of Mr Holland’s lieutenants in Parliament. To-day tho ; average unionist does not go near his union unless to pay hia

dues, or perhaps to rote in favour of citing the employers for a new award. The union is not to-day what it was to the unionist of times gone by, or what, indeed, it is to the unionist of lands where they have not been lulled into a torpor by a Compulsory Arbitration Act. The proved result is that he loses interest, and in too many cases loses those sturdy, self-reliant characteristics that distinguish the trade unionists, say, of Great Britain. The Arbitration Act has, indeed, had a most far-reaching effect upon the character of the New Zealand trade unionists, because that tired feeling generated in the industrial sphere by the Arbitration Act reacts in every phase of the Labour movement. Here are a few weighty words from a speech made by one of the most forcible leaders in the movement, Mr Bloodworth : - The success of many of these experiments WHS doubtful. No experiment had yet been wholly successful. Nor twenty years the Arbitration Court had fixed the rate of minimum wages and the hours of labour in Now Zealand. He considered that one of the greatest disadvantages of the industrial arbitration system was .the damping effect which it had on trade unionism. Formerly it had been concerned, not only with wmges and conditions, but with the protection of its special trade ■ or craft. They wore concerned with the craftsmanship. Much of the lack of pride of craft to-day among the younger workmen was due to the changed industrial conditions. A Vise and weighty words from one who is evidently not a mere statutory unionist, but a genuine trade unionist, whose words may quite fittingly be placed alongside of a few words on the same subject spoken by the judge: — I hope that the trade unions will 1 absorb some of the old guild spirit. In some quarters the unions were regarded as bodies merely to get higher wages for the workers. Unions, like the old guilds, should endeavour to do something along the lines of helping their members to become more efficient workers and tradesmen. The writer ventures the suggestion that words expressing a wish instead of a hope would probably have given better expression to the judge’s real feeling. The deterioration thus admitted to be the outcome of the system is one of the worst of the evils caused by an Act intended “ to encourage the formation of industrial unions.” It would be difficult to imagine a worse condemnation of the system that has admittedly produced such results.