H.—35

have had their standard of living cut down " ? Does he think that the standard of living of the workers to-day should be cut down ? It seems to me that that is the obvious inference to be drawn from that statement, and when he is dealing with Mr. Semple's question he might reply to that aspect, of the question also. Then, on page 85 Mr. Poison says that by law " the New Zealand Farmers' Union should be the officially recognized representative body of farmers." Would Mr. Poison also agree that by law the trades-union or any union of employers should represent the workers or employers in any particular industry —that that should be embodied in the law ? If it is to apply to the Farmers' Union it is only fair that it should apply to the employers or the workers. Then, on pages 85 and 86 he argues that the preference should be cut out of an award where the workers refuse to accept employment. I think there again it should be made to operate both ways, and if the employers refuse to give employment to any section of workers they should be liable to a penalty in the same way that the workers would be if they refused to accept employment. Mr. Tucker : On page 76 of his paper Mr. Poison deals with efficiency : I should like to know whether he refers to efficiency in quality or in quantity. There has been an increase in the volume of output in this country —that is, in the agricultural and pastoral industries. Then he deals with public interest in production : to what extent can the workers, apart from having a voice in the management of an industry, be held responsible for any low rate of production ? Then, my next question is in regard to the statement on page 84, paragraph 2 : what does he mean when he says " Wages should bear an ascertainable relation to productivity, and depend largely on production." Does he mean here that wages shall be fixed upon national production ? Will he also say whether, in face of the fact that he claims that any cost created in a sheltered industry can be passed on to the agricultural and pastoral industries, he claims that a national award should be made to cover all industries ? Mr. A. Coolc: I would like to ask Mr. Poison about twenty-five questions, but I will content myself by asking him, Does he not think that if the country workers, such as farm labourers and forestry workers, were protected by Court awards or industrial agreements, would it not make for more efficiency in the various industries? That is my question, and I would like to explain it by stating that Mr. Poison himself admits that you will not get efficiency in any industry, particularly in the unsheltered industries, unless there is a thoroughly contented and satisfied working-class operating those industries. It is impossible for the workers to be satisfied under the present conditions, when one set of workers are getting one rate of pay and those adjacent to them are getting another rate of pay. The Arbitration Court in its award for the shearing industry has seen fit —unwisely, in my opinion—to exempt from the operations of the award permanent employees who are workers who have been in the employ of the employer for three months prior to the commencement of shearing. Consequently those permanent employees work side by'side with men getting the Arbitration Court award rate, in some cases higher than the permanent rates they are receiving. The result is that there is great dissatisfaction, and efficiency does not take place in the industry. The workers are working one against the other. The man who is getting paid at the lower rate is inclined to neglect his work, which is only human nature. Again, I would ask Mr. Poison to take into consideration the state of affairs in the Australian States, where the whole of this industry is covered by awards of the Court ; and if the farmers in Australia can pay the award rates, where they are subject to droughts and all sorts of pests, and still prosper, why is it not possible in a country which is much more fortunate as far as climatic conditions are concerned, and which is practically free of pests ? What undue hardship would result in this country if the whole of the rural occupations were covered by awards of the Court ? Mr. Churchhouse: I have just one question to ask Mr. Poison. lam afraid that he has brought a lot of questions upon himself by the way in which he has written his paper. I refer to a statement on page 86 as to land deterioration. I would like to know from Mr. Poison whether that is not due to the go-slow policy of the farmer. It is a very important matter to the country that the land should be kept going. In this country to-day we have factories big enough to take double the quantity of produce that is produced from the land. Our freezing-works are big enough, our dairy factories big enough, our transport system and our shipping trade are big enough to handle the largest possible output, but when we see that our land is deteriorating, as stated by Mr. Poison, I would like to know if that does not come under the heading of a go-slow policy. We do desire to see the farmer getting his rights so far as the national dividend is concerned, and I would like to know from Mr. Poison what the Farmers' Union is doing, or what the leaders are doing, to get the land back to productivity, and to secure for the farmer the money return that should be his. I will take one industry—the production of pork : The pig is sold on the farm at 3-|d. per pound in the Wairarapa to-day. The farmer comes down to Wellington and buys a pound of bacon for which he has to pay Is. 2d. I would like to know what becomes of the difference between what the farmer receives and what the workers —the consumers —have to pay. I take it that it is the duty of the Farmers' Union to attend to that matter. Mr. Revell: As I can see the freezing industry looming pretty largely in the deliberations of this Conference before it has concluded, I think I might just as well start and put in my note at this stage of the game. By way of preliminary I would ask Mr. Poison one question : That as the Farmers' Union is asking that the freezing-workers be placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, is that fact to be taken as an indication that the union is of opinion that the wages of the workers in that industry are too high ? Mr. Purtell: In Mr. Poison's statement he says, "It is this disparity of price-levels that is at the source of most of our economic troubles to-day. The higher awards obtained in the town industries are largely responsible for the drift to town, and official figures show that while the mean population increased by 80,000, or over 6 per cent., the numbers employed on the land decreased by 9,000, or over 6 per cent., between 1923 and 1926." Does Mr. Poison think, in view of the figures brought before us economists, that that might not be the result of our freehold policy especially causing

90