ARBITRATION COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 25 May 1931, Page 6

ARBITRATION COURT

MR BISHOP’S REPLY

(By Telegraph —Per Press Association)

WELLINGTON, May 23

Mr T. O. Bishop, Secretary of the New Zealand Employers’ Federation replied on behalf of the employers to the issues raised by the other side.

He expressed the opinion that the workers’ ease could be summarised under three headings: (1) Cost of jiving, (2) purchasing power, and (3) interest. He contended, in the first place that there bad been a steady improvement in the workers’ position from the cost of Jiving point of view, and that this was borne out by the quarterly periods. During this term, the index number bad shown a rise, but for sixteen similar periods it had shown a drop. . The greatest rise had been 1.4 and the greatest fall being 11.8.

It was clear be continued, there would be no reduction in the standard' of living and pnrchasin«A power unless the wage reduction was out of proportion to the fall in prices. Commodity prices had fallen very rapidly in the last few months, and were still falling, lie submitted figures demonstrating the fall in the cost of living, subsequent; to wage reductions in 1922, and lie submitted it would have a similar effect if it reduction were made at the present time. If wages in the secondary industries remained at the present level, the cumulative effect, of the present unemployment would continue. If wages were increased, the present position of the farmer would he made even more desperate, and it must be remembered that, even now, his income had fallen by 40 per cent, and the capital value of his property in many cases, had disappeared. Referring to interest, Mr Bishop said the reference to land holders called for a brief reply. The position in regard, to interest on the national debt was that New Zealand had been Inning her roads, bridges, railways, public buildings, development of land, and many other things, on the time-payment system, and had arranged for the instalments to be spread over a long term and throughout many years of rising prices, she bad reaped the advantage. She was under a disadvantage nrv prices were down, but having acquired •-i.e goods, she was under obligation to) pay.

It must be remembered also, that the workers received a very large share of the borrowed money in the ■n England and New Zealand worf form of wages. The bondholders both people who had invested small savings. The effect of the failure to pay interest in New Zealand would be to jeopardise tlie savings in the Post Officeand other savings banks andi all life insurance policies and funds in the hands of the Public Trustee. Failure to pay interest in England would mean that Now Zealand would never again be able to borrow on favourable terms. Tn conclusion, Mr Bishop denied emphatically that the employers were seeking to lower the standard of living. Mr Bishop said the employers’ case had followed on n broad line ol argument. Advocates on t-lie other s> had devoted less attention to dis-pro-ving this than they had to pursue minor questions of varying uegiv' of irrelevancy. Mr Roberts bad alleged tlie reduction in purchasing power of the workers in New Zealand had contributed as much to the depression, as the reduced price of primary products in overseas markets. In view of the fact that two-thirds of New Zealand’s primary products were exported, and one-third was consumed locally the -statement was obviously exaggerated. Mr McCombs bad endeavoured to show a reduction m. waves would reduce the farmes’ total cost by only £4 4s per annum, and bad stated since that applied to dairy farming where labour costs were the highest per unit of production, it would apply with even greater force to auv other class of farming. Mt Bishop referred the Court to a pamphlet on tlie cost of wool production, prepared by the lecturer on farm economics at Canterbury Agricultural College, from which he said it would appear that on a sheep farm, the actual wages accounted for from onethird to one-half the total working expenses, and this was not taking into account any wages apart from the farm itself.

COMPLIMENTS EXCHANGED. WELLINGTON, May 23. At the conclusion of Mr Bishop’s speech, the representatives of both sides paid a tribute to the friendly manner in which the proceedings had been conducted. Mr Justice Frazer also expressed his appreciation of the spirit in which the arguments had been presented by both sides. He said he could not help contrasting the friendly frank spirit with that under which similar proceedings had recently been conducted in the Federal Arbitration Court of Australia. It seemed that there was an underlying current of friendship, and a desire to understand the other side s , view in this country, and this had been i exemplified during the hearing. He as- , sored the parties that he and his col- j leagues would go very carefully into! the arguments submitted, and would arrive at a decision, which would he in . accordance with the facts. He hoped it would be possible to give a decision, some time next week. * The Court then rose. 'j