STATE REGULATION OF INDUSTRY IN NEW ZEALAND.

Otago Witness, Issue 3867, 24 April 1928, Page 7

STATE REGULATION OF INDUSTRY IN NEW ZEALAND.

By

J. MacGregor,

M.L.C.

PASS IT ON.” About 20 years ago it was gravely announced that a certain Trades and Labour Council in New Zealand had set up a cominitteee to prepare a model Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, and the fact reminded people of the story about a certain conclave of learned theologians appointed to draw up a ereed for their church. The story gj>s tha<after many meetings and much prayerful deliberation it was agreed to dissn've the conclave, as the net result of its labours consisted of only two words. “We believe . . .” Some people seem to be under the impression that the Prime Minister’s Conference is to undertake the task of preparing for submission to Parliament an entirely new system complete in itself. It .is extremely unlikely that the conference will undertake any such task, but if it should the probabilities are that it would never get oeyond the initial words, “Be it enacted ..” Mr Reeves told Parliament that tie had found the task of framing the original Bill a very difficult one ; but it would be much more difficult to make a fresh start now. After having set ip what has been described as a “ beacon r o the world,” it is not in human nature that we should remove it and thereby admit failure, even in spite of the fact that those of the Australian States that were attracted by our “ beacon ” have found themselves in the same plight as we seem to have reached now—on the rocks. We I know what happened in the case of Lew South Wales. Most people have probably forgotten that Victoria, as veil as New South Wales, sent a commission to report upon our wonderful invention. In spite of the fact that the rep was favourable, Victoria, fortunately for herself, decided to retain her own system of Wages- Boards which is still in opera tion. Several other commissions—one from Scotland and another from America —were attracted by the ‘‘ beacon ” to our enlightened shores, and their reports were not merely unfavourable, but almost e>n temptuous. As for ourselves, -not only have we failed to solve, our problem, but our experience seems to have rendered us incapable of profiting by our >essons. It has been said that it is the very nature of wrong principles to bring about situations from which it is impossible to got back to right principles, and that seems to be our plight. The fact seems tv be that, not only have we failed to solve this particular problem, but that wo are incapable of contributing anything better than negative results to the solution of this and other industrial problems. Anyone who ventures to criticise any existing institution must expect to ne ct with the question. What, docs he nropose to substitute for it One often finds that such a challenge partakes very much of the nature of an anticipatory .-etort rather than of a request for information —a simple and obvious,, although not very logical or convincing - way of meeting criticism; and it often turns out that the challenger has not even taken the trouble t- ascertain whether or not tl e critic has in fact suggested a remedy.

The writer is convinced that to discuss the question of the retention, ar the abolition of the system of State regulation would be waste of time and effort, and that for the simple and sufficient reason that the federated employers and the bastard unions ar-’ at one m advocating the retention of the court whose very existence renders real conciliation and genuine goodwill in industry .impossible. The great and noble principle that has produced this remarkable situation is expressed in the three little words placed at the head of this article—“ Pass it on.” . Some years ago it was pointed out by the writer that there was some real danger of this system of sham conciliation being used as a means of enabling the em ployers and the unions to enter into ar : rangements, which, in ' effect, would amount to a conspiracy against the con sumer. An institution or a party that

| lives on after it has ceased to serve the purpose for which it was created tends inevitably to get perverted to purposes of an entirely different and purely mischievous character. That the production of conciliation and goodwill (with, unfortunately, a Court of Arbitration, however shadowy, in the background) was the end and aim of the system as devised by Mr Reeves there can be no doubt The pro vision made by him for this purpose was the setting up of elective boards of con ciliation with impartial persons elected to the position of chairmen. This system came to grief in consequence of certain abuses having been allowed to creep in, and in 1908 the boards were abolished, and provision was made for the appointment of conciliation commissioners, and for the selection by the commissioners of expert assessors to sit with them in the council In the case of the Reeves boards all the proceedings were conducted in public, but under the present system the inquiries may be either public or private, as each coun cil thinks fit, and every time an increase of wages is granted the process of pass ing it on takes place automatically—and this precious result is dignified with the blessed name “ conciliation So far a-s the general public is con cerned the proceedings of these councils are practically secret. When demands for increase of wages or other concessions are under consideration the question must almost inevitably resolve itself into me of arriving at some conclusion as to how much can be “ passed on ” We shall no doubt be met with the assurance that one of the duties of a commissioner is the protection of the consumer and the public ; but the fact remains that the busi ness of a commissioner is to settle disputes and the easiest and the shortest road to the goal is " pass it on,” and that commissioner is regarded as the most successful who oftenest reaches that goal, and the protective function and dutv is likely to prove illusory. For the first few years after the passing of the Act of 1894 the employers paid so little attention to the proceedings before the court that the unions were allowed to “ dig themselves in,” and gain such ad vantages as, for example, preference co unionists ; but now the employers have become experts in the art and science of “ pass it on,” and thus they have come to regard the court as their sheet anchor We can now guess to what lengths ‘hey are prepared to carry this guiding principle when we consider the nature of some of their recent demands for more and still more protection, when the Tariff Bill I wa s before Parliament last session. It would be- interesting to contrast this state of things brought about under a sys tem of legalism with the movements in the direction of real conciliation and genuine goodwill now so promising, not only >n Britain, but also in the United States, under conditions of freedom ; but this must form a subject for future considera tion.