ARBITRATION COURT

Southland Times, Issue 21605, 18 January 1932, Page 5

ARBITRATION COURT

ABOLITION ADVOCATED. VIEW OF FARMERS’ UNION. Tlie question of the abolition of the i Arbitration Court or, at the least, a modii fication of the provisions of its awards, | was again discussed at the monthly meetj ing of Ihe Southland Executive of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union on Saturday, and I it was ultimately decided to request the I Southland delegate Io the forthcoming New i Zealand executive’s quarterly meeting to urge that the Court should be abolished. “Most of our trouble to-day is caused by the curse of the Arbitration Court,” said Mr A. S. McNaught. “It has certainly found wages for the men, but what' about ' tlie work? Workers are being frequently ■ dismissed because employers are unable to pay the award wages.” Mr T. Major said' that in New Zealand no compulsory legislation—as was the case in Australia —had been brought down to reduce interest charges. “Australia is evidently getting out of her difficulties, but we are coming in behind that dominion and will probably have to carry out many of the drastic steps adopted there,” he said. “The banks, for instance, are still making good returns for their investors and the ' rate of interest should be reduced. Such I a reduction would immediately lower tho costs of production.” Mr P. Arnott said he considered the Prime Minister had put his finger on the real cause of the trouble when he emphasized that (here should be a reduction in costs, i.e., in wages. "It must come in the long run,” declared Mr Arnott. Mr Major: I agree with Mr Arnott. The Arbitration Court must break down under the load of its own restrictions. Take the case of the building of a brick house; a start is made with clay which one gets for nothing—the price is comprised of wages. I 1 believe that to-day one could get a house ■ built for half the cost of two years ago.