The Sun 42 Wyndham Street. Auckland. N.Z. FRIDAY. OCTOBER 9, 1927. A JUDGE ON WAGES

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 169, 7 October 1927, Page 8

The Sun 42 Wyndham Street. Auckland. N.Z. FRIDAY. OCTOBER 9, 1927. A JUDGE ON WAGES

FROM the lofty dignity that doth hedge a judge, the President of the Arbitration Court has flailed the harsher critics of his tribunal’s services in periodically adjusting wages in relation to the cost of living. The timely pronouncement appears to have been made on the principle of the old saw that “when Sir Oracle speaks let no dog bark.” It may be noted, however, that the judicial criticism of injudicial critics of the Arbitration Court is based on a cocksure assumption that “newspaper criticisms, for the most part, are based on utter ignorance of the position.” Since we believe, quite modestly, that this journal has not yet warranted such a scathing reproach, we have no hesitation in commenting on the work of the Court, its advantages and disadvantages, and its chronic failure to maintain industrial peace and contentment and to adjust the irksome disparities between the cost of labour and the price of products. It may be the valour of ignorance to refer at all to the Court’s limitations and defects, but there must be something more tangible than perverse or ignorant criticism to explain the reason for the widespread dissatisfaction with its services. Inspired wisdom is not essential for any one to see quite clearly and understand perfectly that it is precisely because of these marked limitations and defects and nothing else that there is a mutter of revolt on both sides of industry against the Court, a, demand for a thorough overhaul of the frayed Act, and rumoqrs of strange experiments. With rather an exaggerated asperity, Mr. Justice Frazer has asserted that it is nonsense for anyone to say that the Arbitration Court had pursued a mad policy of raising wages regardless of consequences or that, in other words, it had made progressive increases of wages irrespective of economic conditions. Several commentators in Conservative journals which covertly desire the abolition of the Court may have exercised such ignorance, but, as a matter of fact, intelligent critics of wage adjustment have not said anything of the: sort. They have directed their criticism for the most part against the statutorily narrow limits of the consideration given by the Court to the whole range of economic conditions. The Conciliation and Arbitiation Act, which has been in active existence for over thirtv >ears, has always been defective in that it does not provide a fixed principle on which the Court could fix wages. It was inevitable that a tendency to adopt the cost of living as a standard basis of wage adjustment should become more or less a habit. In general practice the loose theory has worked out very well, so well, indeed, that it would be an evil day for the majority of workers if and when the Court ceased to act as their best friend and protector.

So far the sheltered industries have secured the most benefit from the Court’s services, but the primary industries, which enjoy little or no shelter at all, being compelled to traffic in the open market abroad and suffer the vagaries of prices and speculation, have been handicapped. And many other industries have had to pay high wages even when these were greater than the value of the labour given for the money. As for the industrial unionist, he has felt for a long time, probably in ignorance, of course, that every rise in wages merely meant soon and seldom later a higher cost of living. The Court and the Act would be. none the worse for a course of reformative treatment. THE ABUSE OF PROTECTION WHAT may truly be termed a political sensation has been caused by the report of the Tariff Board which has just been presented to the Commonwealth House of Representatives. The sensational accompaniments of an election or a Parliamentary party fight over a measure pass as quickly as they arise, but there is in this tariff report something grim and sinister, something which points a dramatically accusing finger at the results of that, protection which is the settled policy of an industrial Australia. In this report, the admission is made that the imposition of increased tariffs on certain classes of imports, although designed to improve the position of several important industries in the Commonwealth, has merely resulted in the stagnation of those industries. In other words, “protection is failing to protect.” There is in the Commonwealth, the board states, a pi'evailing tendency to abuse the protective system, and industrial unions are warned of the serious menace which is arising out of the cost of production. Protection is being doubly exploited; first by the manufacturer, who sees in it an opportunity to increase his charges to the public, and secondly, by the unions, which perceive the chance of securing higher wages. The unscrupulous manufacturer says: I will not be satisfied with, say, a 10 per cent, profit; I will keep ,“>y prices at just a fraction under those of the overseas manufacturer, who has to add freight and twenty per cent, duty to the price at which he can sell here on a fair margin of profit. Thus I will make twenty per cent.” The union says: “Here is our chance to squeeze the lemon. This manufacturer is making too much profit—we will take half of it in increased wages.” With the two of them, the industry is very truly “between the devil and the deep sea.” And all the while the public pays! It is a situation fraught with possibilities of disaster for Australia, where, from that very protection which is now being abused, have been built up immense manufacturing industries, the collapse of which would mean industrial ruin, with consequences to endure for a decade. Will a Government, refusing to allow the public to be imposed upon by high prices, artificially created, knock away the foundations of sand upon which its protective policy appears to have been built, or will it set to work carefully to substitute rock for the sand? It is a position from which, there is no immediate escape, and one from which there can be no extrication without disaster unless both manufacturers and employees agree to be less selfish in the matter of profits and payments and consider the question with the ultimate welfare of the country as their objective. There should be in the very serious industrial plight of her sister Dominion a lesson for New Zealand. This country needs full and adequate protection for the development of her secondary industries; but she does not want protection that will be exploited by the greed of either manufacturer or employee to the detriment of the consumer. How to bring about the good and avoid the evil is the business of the Government, and careful observation of the working of the new tariff and its effects on production, profits, wages and the cost of living should teach the Government all that is necessary for it to know:,