H—3s

a multitude of parties is it possible to have elastic awards without the elasticity being taken advantage of by some of the less scrupulous parties ? " Mr. Robinson knows that I have said I support Mr. Bishop's suggestion of voluntary arbitration, and I think it covers the point. Mr. Robinson next asks, " Is it not a fact that such watertight clauses as appear in awards have been put there because some employers have taken advantage of loosely-worded clauses in order to do things that were never intended by the assessors at the Conciliation Council I" I have said that I object to the whole system of the Court fixing conditions in industry. Ido not like it; I think it is economically unsound. I can only answer the question by making that general statement, which, after all, is the text on which the whole of my paper was based. Then Mr. Robinson puts this : " Paragraph 5 (ii) —Payment should be generally by results : Is it equitable to base wages on results when the workers at present have no control over the machinery or production ? Would the employers agree to permit the workers to produce as much as they can and guarantee that there should be no limitation of production by managerial interference ? Would they agree that the workers be given a share in the control of industry ? " I have already said that in my opinion the function of the workers is to work, the secretary to do the secretarial work, the manager to manage, and so on. A further question from Mr. Robinson is : Paragraph 5 (iii) —Wages should not be based on such artificial conditions as the size of a man's family : Since when have families been manufactured artificially ? " Ido not know that that question needs any answer. Mr. Robinson's last question is, " Does the speaker know that the Dunedin City Council, that could not find an increase of Id. per hour without reducing hands, had no difficulty in financing out of profits of trading departments the cost of a new Town Hall, a proposal which the ratepayers had turned down ? " I had a talk about that question while we were outside just now, and I merely want to draw attention to the fact that I put in the Dunedin City Council as an example. Ido not know much about the circumstances, but the point I was making was that when a man has a fixed amount of money to spend on wages, if wages go up he must get rid of men eventually. That was really the case I was making—that the farmer, owing to the fact that the price of his produce is out of his control, had a limited amount of money to spend on wages. Therefore if wages go up he must employ less men. Mr. Fulton asks : " Mr. Turner infers on page 141 that the Court has reduced the purchasing-power of the workers, and that the producers would be forced to adopt means to bring down the price to the level where he could sell it freely again. Does not Mr. Turner think that the main cause of the loss of the farmers' purchasing-power is due to the overlapping expenditure and mismanagement on the part of employers and farmers ? " Mr. Turner does not think that is the main cause. Mr. Martin was very anxious that his question which he has asked before, but to which he has not received a reply, should be answered. After quoting our recommendation — " It should be a penal offence for any persons to coerce or cajole any worker to restrict his output " — he says, " What about employers who restrict output to keep up prices, and combinations of employers who subsidize firms to keep their plants idle ? " I answered that question when dealing with Mr. Purtell's inquiry. I referred to the Golden Bay case, and said that the most serious efforts to restrict output were really attempts on the part of employers to reduce overhead expenditure in the interests of the public. Mr. Baldwin asked, " Would Mr. Turner be satisfied if the primary-produce workers were exempted from the provisions of the law ? " That is a question that Mr. Turner cannot answer. It is a question for the primary producers, but I think it is answered by the statement I made when I supported Mr. Bishop's suggested compromise to which I have drawn the attention of the Conference, and with which Mr. Roberts also appears to agree. Mr. Bromley asked whether I agreed that the wages of capital (interest) should also fluctuate with the value of the product. Yes, I think that very largely it does ; but I do not know whether I have quite got the " hang " of the question. [ think that profits generally fall before wages. Mr. Bloodworth asked whether the replies to the questions given on page 139 have been weighted according to their importance ; and, if not, what is che value of the answers ? Well, if Mr. Bloodworth wishes to see the analysis of the answers 1 can give them to him. They have not been weighted in the manner he suggests. We had replies from 116 representatives of trade and commerce ; thirty-two from representatives of local and national public men, including members of Parliament, officials, employers' associations, Chambers of Commerce, and so on ; forty were from professional men, including only one professor of economics ; eight were from farmers ; and twenty-nine from men in unclassified occupations. Mr. Bloodworth also asked whether the Chambers of Commerce are in favour of the establishment of a standard minimum wage. No, the Chambers of Commerce are not in favour of the fixing of a standard minimum wage. Then he asks, " If not in favour of a standard minimum wage, how do they expect unions to be in favour of payment by results ? " All I can say is that I, at any rate, am not in favour of a standard minimum wage. The question of sweating has got to be dealt with. It is generally dealt with by public opinion ; but no country can possibly tolerate sweating, and I am certain that there is no member of the Conference on this side of the room that would tolerate it for one moment. Mr. Bloodworth's next question is, " If the Chambers of Commerce are not now in favour of fixing a standard minimum wage, will the Chambers continue to be in favour of fixed retail prices for proprietary articles, which are an important factor in the worker's cost of living ? " Ido not know about these proprietary articles. It is a matter that has been ventilated to some extent, and I gather that there is something to be said on each side. The prices have been fixed in order that the small retailer may be able to live as against the big store, which can afford to cut the prices, so that it is really protection for the small-income-earning class, the small shopkeeper. Then Mr. Bloodworth asks, " Have the Chambers of Commerce considered what would be the result to a large portion of their members of a fall in wages to workmen, with a consequent reduction in purchasing-power ? " The suggestion is that if wages fell there would be a reduction in purchasing-power. Well, I think that I would rather the economists answered that question. Mr. Roberts asked what percentage of the 45 per cent, of the total population who are breadwinners are actual wage workers, and whether I could give an estimate

171