FARM WORKERS’ AGREEMENTS

Press, Volume LXXXI, Issue 24741, 5 December 1945, Page 3

FARM WORKERS’ AGREEMENTS

♦ REFERENCE TO COURT OP ARBITRATION

DISCUSSION IN THE HOUSE

(From Cur Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, December 4. A clause in the Statutes Amendment Bill providing for the reference of sharemiikers’ agreements to the Arbitration Court for a recommendation was held over by the House of Representatives this evening and will be referred to the Labour Bills Committee for evidence to be taken from employers. The Government, however, insisted on the retention of a similar clause dealing with the conditions and wages of agricultural workers. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr S. G. Holland), opposing the clause dealing with farm workers, said .he was not prepared to say that farm conditions should not be dealt with by the Arbitration Court, but he did think that more considera tion was necessary before so important a change was made. The late Hon. H, T. Armstrong, one of the best Ministers of Labour New Zealand had had, would not have introduced a labour bill in this way. Mr Armstrong had been a great advocate of dealing with these matters by agreement. a method which had apparently worked quite satisfactorily in the farming industry. It had' apparently preserved harmony between employers and employees. Mr W. J-. Poison (Opposition, Stratford) said ;ie wished to protest emphatically against the clause. Bringing farm workers under the act would destroy valuable work done in the past and create turmoil and disagreement between farmers and their workers.

Mr D. „W. Coleman (Government, Gisborne) said there was nothing unfair in the clause relating to agricultural workers. It gave the Court of Arbitration power to hear a dispute when the two parties to an agreement which had been in existence for some time could not agree on a new agreement. This merely accorded agricultural workers the same privileges as town workers already enjoyed. Irritation Among Farmers Mr A. J. Murdoch (Opposition, Marsden) said the system whereby sharemilkers made agreements with owners had worked satisfactorily for years, but recently a member of another place went to the Waikato, stirring up trouble between farmers and sharemilkers. That was the reason for the clauses in the bill. That gentleman did a lot of harm. The Minister in charge of the bill, instead of stirring up more trouble, would be well advised to withdraw the clauses from the bill and let the proposals be circulated to farmers’ organisations for their comment. There was a good deal of irritation among farmers to-day, as would be admitted by the Minister of Agriculture, who did not find a recent meeting in Taranaki entirely harmonious. Mr J. Thorn (Government, Thames): There are some hooligans there. Mr Murdoch: And elsewhere, too. Mr Murdoch said the difficulties between sharemilkers and farmers had been exaggerated. If there were less interference with sharemilkers and farmers production would be aided instead of being hampered. The Minister of Agriculture (the Hon. B. Roberts) said dairy factories compelled their suppliers to take out shares, which was a form of compulsory unionism. Those who did the work had as much right to an organisation as had the owners, who were sometimes absentees living in towns.

Mr E. B, Corbett (Opposition, Egmont) asked that the clause concerning the adjustment of sharemilking disputes be held over, so that an opportunity could be given interested parties for further consideration. The Acting-Minister of Labour (the Hon. J. O’Brien) said so far as his information went the average farmer had no dispute with the clause as it stood. ?5 “ ls opinion the clause provided an ideal way to settle disputes by referring • matters to the Arbitration Court.

The clause was referred to the Labour Bills Committee.