H.—35

commodity have pooled the demand for their particular commodity and a number of the men will be discharged. On two occasions works employing forty men closed down. In one case there was a prosecution under the War Regulations Act. I think we should have some explanation of this matter. lam an Englishman, and I wish to say that the average New-Zealander, mentally and physically, is better than the average I have come across in the Old Country. Can Mr. Turner justify over-capitalization and expecting the same return on capital ? It is on record that during the war period and immediately afterwards tremendous sums were paid in buying out certain companies : does Mr. Turner suggest that employers can ethically demand the same return on capital in such cases ? On page 139 the argument put forward is simply that if the Arbitration Court had not increased wages perhaps prices would have come down ; but our whole experience has been that wages have followed prices all the time. In fact, discussing the matter over a cup of tea last time with one of the employers, he agreed with me that the fixed retail price of certain New Zealand manufactures is restricting output. I would like an answer to some of these points. Mr. Churchhouse: On page 140, clause 12, Mr. Turner says, in subclause (b), " that the prices of our exports in the world's markets have not increased in the same proportion as our costs of production." If the farmers cannot get the price they are asking for, there should be an increase in production ; and it will be our job to show them in committee how they can increase production. The whole trend of the paper is that the arbitration system aggravates this position. I want to say with regard to the points that the workers are sheltered under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and the sheltered industries are sheltered by taxes as against the farmer, surely the farmer must admit that the State is doing something for the farmer. In 1913 the Agricultural Department cost the taxpayer £180,000, and to-day it must be costing a very much larger amount of money. Surely the farmer is receiving some benefit from all that expenditure ? I have here a newspaper cutting, a Vancouver cablegram dated the 2nd December, which says : " Officially reporting on the results of his investigations during his visit to New Zealand and Australia, Mr. Alexander Lucas, British Columbia's Special Commissioner, states that New Zealand's system in aiding farmers is well nigh perfect. New Zealand, consequently, leads the world in its output of domestic products. As British Columbia strongly resembles New Zealand, Mr. Lucas recommends that a similar system be adopted here." Through the Agricultural Department the farming industry has undoubtedly received a great deal of benefit from the State. The farmers are trying to prove all the time that it is we who are sheltered by the State, but we could enumerate along many lines the assistance the farmers receive from the State. We are big enough to say where the State assists us, and surely gentlemen on the other side will be big enough to admit they are receiving something from the State. They are assisted by the State just as much as any other portion of the community. The Government is going to put the pork industry on a better wicket. It has already advanced a large sum of money, and a great deal more will be spent by the State in putting that industry on a better footing. Is the farming industry not materially assisted by the State through the Agricultural Departmenc and by cheaper rates on the Government railways ? Mr. Turner's Reply. Mr. Turner: Mr. Revell has asked me whether I support a system of employment that tends to endanger the lives and limbs of the workers by requiring them to work at a speed which is dangerous. In asking me that question he made special mention of the freezing industry. Of course, neither Mr. Turner nor any one else supports a system such as he describes ; but in connection with that matter I may have an opportunity in committee of producing figures to show that the slaughtermen have not increased their rate of work since Ido not know how far back, but, at any rate since 1912. Mr. Johns asks, " What would he (Mr. Turner) do to increase the work or output of the dairy-factory workers of this country ? " Mr. Johns drew a glowing picture of the high efficiency of the dairy industry. I am sorry I do not know anything about that industry, but I have had a word with Mr. Brechin, and 1 understand that the dairy industry is highly efficient, and it is quite possible, apart from putting in more labour-saving machinery, that nothing can be done to increase efficiency. I accept Mr. Brechin's statement. Mr. Purtell asks, " Has not wages followed prices ? " Mr. PurteU: My point was, Was it not a fact that wages had followed prices, even during the war period ? Mr. Turner: Not always. They seem to run in a circle. Sometimes wages follow prices, and sometimes wages get ahead of prices. Sometimes. when prices are going up wages are going down, and sometimes when prices are going down wages are away above them, It is impossible to generalize on a thing like that. Then Mr. Purtell asks, " Can Mr. Turner justify over-capitalization ? " No, Mr. Turner cannot, neither can any one else ; but a great deal is said about over-capitalization which has nothing whatever to do with the case. For instance, Mr. Revell put in a paper when we met last showing over-capitalization, in the freezing industry. If I get a chance I propose to play Mr. Revell out, and show that there is nothing whatever in the suggestion that over-capitalization has had anything to do with the wages of the worker. The effect of over-capitalization has been felt by the people who put the capital in. Mr. Purtell also asks, " Would Mr. Turner be in favour of prosecuting companies who are found guilty of restricting output ? " He referred very freely to the case of the Golden Bay Cement Co. I understand in that case the result of the so-called restriction of output was a decrease in the cost of cement. In fact, half the stories talked about restriction of output do not reach the point at all, because so-called restriction of output is nothing of the kind ; it is merely an attempt on the part of the employer to decrease overhead expenditure per unit for the benefit of the community. That, I understand, was the position in the case of the Golden Bay Cement Co. Mr. Robinson puts this question: "In paragraph 4 (A) a complaint is made about the rigidity of agreements. In covering

170