GRAIN-GROWING.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18264, 24 December 1924, Page 12

GRAIN-GROWING.

LABOUR'S DEMANDS. ARBITRATION COURT CRITICISED. Labour's demands were stated by Mr G. Sheat, president of the North Canterbury Threshing Mill Owners' Association, at the annual meeting of that body yesterday, to be destroying the grain-growing industry of the Dominion. At the meeting there, was also some strong criticism the Arbitration Court, In the course of his annual report, which was adopted, Mr Sheat said the meagre vield of the 1923-24 harvest had left manv of the owners on the wrong side of the ledger owing to the very poor vields in many areas, and the small "area in cereals. This was no doubt, attributable to the high tariff for threshing that had to be charged to meet the ever-increasing demands of Labour, whose policy of "ask and receive that your joy may be full" was gradually but nevertheless _ surely destroying" the grain-growing industry of New Zealand. He quoted a table of wages and charges showing ever-in-creasing overhead costs to the millowner which, he maintained, could only be met the one way —by passing it on to the farmer, and so on to the worker's loaf. When the mill-owners asked the Court for a reduction of 9s (3d per 1000 in 1922, he said, the Court, made this pronouncement, as recorded in "The Press" of December 22nd, 1922:—"Regarding the ability of the farmers to pay the threshing rates, it appears from the evidence that about 3d a bushel represented wages. It does not seem to us that a reduction in the rate of wages can materially affect the farmer. If it costs 6d or Is more a bushel to grow wheat than the" sale of wheat will realise, relief must come from. some other source than wages alone." That logic, said Mr Sheat, was irrefutable if that particular 3d was the only one, but there was 3d more to the man who cast the ploughshare, 3d more to the man who forged the plough itself, and so'on, ad lib. Twenty times three was os, and the farmer was left with only the experience and his mortgage. * The pronouncement went on to say: "In any event the financial position of the farmer does not depend on the price of cereals' alone. The North :Canter'bury farmers all go in for mixed farming, and the prices now obtainable for wool, mutton, lamb, and butter are considerably higher than it was generally expected they would be. farmers will grow what it best pays them to grow,- and although the threshing mill owners will be prejudicially affected if less wheat and other cereals are grown, we are satisfied that a severe reduction , in the mill workers' wages would not materially affect the situation, and it would inflict'an undue hardship on the men." • "That means," continued the chairman, "that, someone has got to be a scapegoat—we will make the mill-owner the scapegoat. That is why there is only 170,000 acres of wheat to-day. The fanner has gone in for something else that pays better,, and has less, ■harassment. There is only one thing, that can save the wheat-growing industry of the Dominion, and that is a £5 duty against Australian flour dumping, and if that is not done, then in six years half the mills will be on the scrap-heap and their owners bankrupt. Proceeding, he stated that Labour's demand for the hour system was one of the most preposterous and absurd citations ever brought before the Court of Arbitration, and showed that their policy was an aggressive' one, and he was sorry to say a "progressive" "one, for they' got a little further each'time, Id an hour or 10d a thousand, but another milestone on towards their acknowledged goal: "Socialism of all the means of production, distribution, and wealth." Their demands,put in round figures, would have meant £4 18s • per 1000 increased costs, and seeing the profit per 1000 was only, as put in by Mr Robert Dalzell, on a 80,000 season basis, £3 10s per 1000,. it could be seen how soon mill-owners would have appeared before the Official Assignee. The thanks of the niill-owners and the farmers of Canterbury were due to the Court for its sane pronouncement and making the award for two years, j He desired to place on record the fact that the Mid-Canterbury Execu- | tive of the Fanners' Union at Ashbur-1 ton had forwarded a cheque for £lO to assist to defray.the costs of the hearing. - Thanks were also due to the seere- j tary of the Employers' Association for very valuable and appreciated assist- i ance in the case. ! Mr T. B. Jones said he thought the Association should strongly condemn the action of the Arbitration Court in respect of the last award for threshing,] mill employees. That action tended to ruin the whole industry. It seemed.to him that the Arbitration Court was controlled by the legal profession and the Trades Hall, and that Labour got a bit more each year. He then proceeded to criticise adversely Mr Justice Frazer's attitude in respect of the recent award. He (the speaker) said he thought that in connexion with threshing mill matters in the future, only practical men should deal with them. The chairman said it was a fact that one of the men sent down from "Wellington to deal with the case knew no more of threshing mills than the speaker did of aeroplanes. However, he agreed with Mr Jones that the men who dealt with such cases in future should be practical men. He thought that the mill-owners should be glad that the Court did not insist on the,hours' system, which would have sent them into the Bankruptcy Court. Mr J. J. Matthews expressed the view that the Arbitration Court had dealt very fairly with the owners. It was fortunate that the hours' system had not been introduced. Although the men had been given an increase, he believed that this would be more than swallowed up in increased food charges. He did not believe for a moment that the latest award would send mill-owners into the Bankrnptcy Court, and his opinion was that Mr Jones's remarks in respect of Mr Justice Frazer were too hard. Mr Jones: Not a bit of it. Mr Matthews said he did not want it to go abroad that the mill-owners were up against the working men. The chairman: They are not. Mr Jo"nes said he "did not like men who hunted with the hounds and ran with the hare. Mr Matthews: I am not doing that. Mr Jones said that if those representing the owners were all like Mr. the men would have got all they asked for. The men, he thought, were quite unreasonable. If the millowners had granted what the men wanted it would have been unfair to the farmers, who would have asked: "What sort of men are those representing the Associationt" He thought there were too many like Mr Matthews on the Association. The discussion was dropped and other business was proceeded with.