ARBITRATION COURT

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 21 January 1928, Page 7

ARBITRATION COURT

DOMINION SYSTEM.

INFLUENCE IN ECONOMICS. SCIENCE CONGRESS COMMENT. BY CABLE—PRESS ASSOCIATION—COPYRIGHT. Received 2 p.m. to-day. HOBART, Jan. 21. The Science Congress ended with a tentative scheme for the interchange of lecturers between America, Australian and Japan. It was suggested that New Zealand might- be asked to co-operate with Australia. The proposed period of exchange was two years. Professor A. H. Toelter, of New Zealand, during the discusison by the economic section of the merits and demerits of the arbitration system in Australia and New Zealand, said that unemployment in New Zealand had been very severe in -the last two> years, partly owing to the depression caused by the heavy fall in the prices of evports. This had added force to certain criticisms of the State regulation of industrial relations. Last year a Bill was introduced by the Government to amend the law, but protests from both employers and trade unions caused most of it to be withdrawn pending inquiry into the operation of compulsory arbitration. He went on to outline the salient points of enquiry into the net material production of New Zealand. He said that at least 70 per cent, was primary production for export. Trade as a whole had enrolled only one quarter of the wage earners in New Zealand. These were largely in sheltered industries not meeting oversea comptition. The system of compulsory arbitration was almost confined to the manual workers in the sheltered industries, but the standards laid down tended to become standards for many employments beyond the immediate scope of the court and farmers found they had to give similar rates and conditions! The court had adopted the cost of living as a basis and had a stereotyped standard of living. It had not succeeded in preventing strikes, parrly because certain militant unions chose to remain beyond its scope. The court operated over a part of industry where it was not required to prevent industrial strikes, but failed to operate where it was most required for that purpose. It had fostered unionism rather than mutual agreement.

Professor Tocker thought the disap pearance of sweating and the improvement in conditions generally were due more to the increase in prosperity than to the court. A critical time had come with the fall of 20 per cent, in prices in the biggest export industries. Professor A. G. B. Fisher, of New Zealand, said the arbitration system, to some degree, was responsible for the higher cost of living, but it would be risky to make drastic changes in industrial legislation in Australia and New Zealand, where the system of ar bitration was so firmly established.

Mr Malcolm Fraser, New Zealand Government Statistician, said the object of arbitration in the Dominion was to increase wages.