MUSTERERS' PAY.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20500, 19 March 1932, Page 20

MUSTERERS' PAY.

ACTION BY SHEEPOWNERS. BITTER PROTEST IN HOUSE. [From Our Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, March 18. Accusing the Government of lawbreaking, Labour members entered a bitter protest in the House to-day against the clause in the Arbitration Bill which prevents members of the South Island Musterers', Packers', and Drovers' Union from recovering at law the difference between award rates of pay and the amount paid by employers under the recent agreement with the men. Mr J. McCombs (Lab., Lyttelton) characterised the clause as the most outrageous piece of legislation that had ever been introduced in the New Zealand Parliament. He declared that the Government had allowed itself to be persuaded by a group of sheepowners to step in and prevent a number of workers from receiving _the amount of rernuineration to which* they were legally entitled. It was interfering with the rights of working men in a ruthless and shameless manner. He alleged that the clause amounted to barefaced robbery. Advice to Men. Mr H. E. Holland, Leader of .the Opposition, explained that in October last, two or three months before the men were required to begin work, theiy had Jbeen advised by large station owners in Canterbury and Marlborough that unless they would work for considerably less than award rates they would not be engaged. This was' a hardship, as they had incurred heavy expenses. He had advised them to accept under protest and notify the employers of their intention to sue foe the balance. The employers had replied that they were acting vuider instructions from the Sheepowners' Federation. He understood that nine stations were affected, involving a sum of £l5O or £2OO. This Bill checked any action against the employers. Prime Minister's Explanation. The Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes said that only one side of the story had been given. Labour voices: Oh, yes, now we will hear. Mr Forbes said the sheepowners had approached the Government . and pointed out that awards affecting them did not expire until December 31st, and they would have to wait a long time for the Court to review the conditions. This length of time was considered a definite hindrance, and it was pointed out they could not afford to carry on under the old conditions with prices as they were. It „ was asked that some arrangement should be made possible by which a mutual agreement could be arrived at regarding wages in order to bring them more into line with the sheepowners' ability to pay. No class of the community was harder hit than those farming high qountry throughout New Zealftid. The sheepowners had told the Government that they were bearing heavy losses, and as a result they asked that it should be possible to come to a mutual agreement, by which less than award rates of pay could be accepted. ' Mr Holland: And you became party to the law breaking.

The Prime Minister said the question had been raised before the formation of the Coalition Government, and it was intended to include a clause similar to the present one in a Bill that was to follow tho presentation of the supplementary Budget. Last October arrangements were made, and both sides were parties. In the present state of the industry- the employers were able to keep more men in work under the agreement made privately than they wouid have if the award had been enforced. CLoud Labour laughter. 1 ) Mr T. D. Burnett (C., Teinuka): Quite true.

Mr McCombs: We can easily imagine you .would approver

The Prime Minister said .the union secretaries had then stepped in and declared that the awards could be enforced", and cases were brought against employers. The big sheepowner was looked upon as the enemy of all mankind, especially by the Labour Party, which refused to give him _ justice. However, there was none bearing such losses.

Mr P. Langstone (Lab., Waimarino) immediately launched an attack upon the Prime Minister, and challenged his statements, declaring that he was giving concessions to his wealthy friends' that would react detrimentally to the 1 workers. "The bunk and sheer nonsense [ talked by the Prime Minister will not bear investigation," he said. "The Prime Minister was going to be a party to pilfering the workers." Action Defended. Mr Burnett said the country concerned was partly alpine in character, being confined exclusively to the South Island, and including about 10,000,000 acres of Crown land which was classed as licensed property. In one instance 70,000 acres were carrying only 5000 sheep, or one sheep to 14 acres. The mustering of this type of land would take a party of six men from a fortnight- to three weeks. This country had been subject to income tax, but not land tax, although the latter was paid on some blocks around the homesteads. A special type of man, physically fit and with sound judgment, was required to work this country. The awards concerned were made during the peak period in December, 1929, and prices began to fall immediately. To-day wool from the districts affected was selling at a loss of between 3Jd to 4d per lb, and surplus stock was "practically unsaleable. The Crown was faced with, the imminent danger of much of the land falling back ifito its hands, and it would become a liability, in that noxious weeds and other posts would have to be attended to. The parties were quite justified inj coming to a mutual agreement,' even if they did break the law, and this was the only way to attack the problems of the primary industries. Agreements had been made to tide the workers and the . employers ovgr difficult times, and this was a case in point where the arbitration system had proved to be directly disadvantageous to the working .man. Mr Burnett said he was sure that he would receive an almost unanimous vote of approval in Canterbury for his attitude m. the matter, and he proposed to go into the division lobby to protect both the employer and the worker. "In my electorate, the Mackenzie County," he said,- "I would get a 90 per cent, vote of confidence." Mr Langstone: The sheep would vote for you. The Leader of the Opposition said in the first instance there had been a' unanimous agreement between the sheepowners and the workers as to thtj terms of Employment, but when the former desired to- break away from this agreement they had not gone back to the unions, but had endeavoured to use economic stress to compel the men to accept poorer conditions. They had been prepared to break the law and had gone to the Government for support. The Government was now bringing forward this retrospective legislation to validate its illegal acts. A Withdrawal. Mr H. T. Armstrpng (Lab., Christchurch East) said the Government had given its friends the right to legalise robbery. They ought to De in gaol and the Pnme Minister with them. * •it ? chairman:.' Order.' You must withdraw. Mr Armstrong: Well, may I say there are better men 'than the Prime Minister in gaol. iFi 1 ® . You must withdraw, o. Armstrong: Very well, -but the otanding Orders cannot prevent me "'om thinking what I would like to say. The closure was applied, aud the clause* retained in the Bill.