PROCEEDINGS OF SECTION G (l.). 625 



The critics of the principle of State interference in industrial 

 matters overlook these elementary but very important facts. 



They speak of the State and the individual as though a clear line 

 of demarcation could be, or ought to be, drawn between the spheres 

 of their operations. As we have seen, this is not the case ; the State 

 is justified and ought to interfere wherever and whenever the indus- 

 trial, social, physical, and moral welfare of the individual demands it. 

 There is no fixed line beyond which the State must not go. Such an 

 idea springs from a complete misconception of the nature of the State, 

 and ignorance of social evolutions. While some acts fall more properly 

 within the scope of State action, and others within that of the individual, 

 yet the State, like the individual, may do all things. 



The development of society has been so rapid that already many 

 of those principles governing the relations of the State and the individual 

 which were regarded as immutable in the middle of the nineteenth 

 century are now admittedly no longer operative. To confine the State 

 to keeping a ring clear for the industrial combatants is no longer regarded 

 as sufficient, even by those who do not consciously favor collectivism 

 at all. The narrow individualism of Herbert Spencer finds few, if any, 

 advocates. Public libraries, baths, parks, schools, municipal gasworks, 

 trams are now recognised by most people as falling within the legitimate 

 and proper sphere of collective action. 



It is now generally accepted that the physical and mental health 

 of the citizens concern the State vitally. Democracy, which entrusts 

 the duties of government to the people, makes it imperative that the 

 people should be fitted to govern. To this end the State endeavors to 

 promote the physical health of the individual citizen by sanitary laws, 

 operative both in workshops and homes, and his mental health by 

 State schools either wholly or partly free to all. In England they 

 have gone so far as to feed all children who need it, recognising that 

 food comes before education, and that without sufficient food of the 

 right kind neither health nor efficient education is possible. 



Coming now to the industrial sphere, we may usefully note that 

 compulsory arbitration in industrial disputes adopted in Australia is 

 slowly making headway elsewhere. The principle here involved is 

 that in the interests of the general public the parties to industrial disputes 

 should not be permitted to disorganise society. Production is a social 

 process, a national, not an individual, function, and individuals ought 

 not to be permitted to create confusion merely because they are unable 

 to agree as to terms. It is in the interest of the State that production 

 should proceed in orderly and effective fashion, and the State should 

 see to it that neither party is treated unjustly nor shirks his responsi- 

 bilities. 



It is contended, however, that, in spite of the grave consequences 

 which in most cases follow from these disputes, the State ought to do 

 no more than compel the parties to keep the peace. No reason that 

 will bear examination can be advanced for such a contention. There 

 is no fundamental distinction between anti-social industrial acts and 

 any others. The man who brawls in the street, who steals, who assaults 

 r2 



