FARMERS AND ARBITRATION

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXI, 2 December 1927, Page 5

FARMERS AND ARBITRATION

WELLINGTON, Ist December. \ The House went into Committee on the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Bill late yesterday afternoon. The Minister of Labour (the Hon. G. J. Anderson) said arbitration legislation should be above party. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr H. 33; Holland) : v “Hits 5 thff'Reform HaWy .had a caucus, on the Bill?” ‘ The Minister urged members to carry on the debate on a high plane, and then proceeded to refer to the depression through which the farming industry had passed. .The < Government had endeavoured to face the difficulties / of the.farming industry in the best; possible manner to prevent it from crumbling. He spoke of the efforts of the farmers to secure alterations in the Arbitration Act, and said the Government had met the position in an honest manner in order that relief might bo given to the industry'. The Bill had been severely criticised, and the Government realised that it was impossible to secure unanimity. Something must be done to help the farmers, and the Bill was’ a step in’ that He aspect that the position should be discussed in a broad way. Conferences had been v suggested,’but unless there was something definite to discuss very little use would be gained by calling them. If a ' conference were called would all the -interested parties attend? / • Mr J. A. Lee (Auckland / East): “Ycru ask them to' be more than human beings.” ‘ ‘ APART FROM' PARTY VIEW- : . . point;” ; ■ / ’ The • Minister said the Government would not evade its responsibilities, but it wanted the House to discuss the matter apart from the party viewpoint, y - 1 If that were done it would be a matter for -the Prime Minister to say later what should be done. ‘ He was talking seriously, and wanted the best expression. of opinion as to how the farmers’ difficulties could bp met.' TKe Press which had criticised him had not. put ; ' up any constructive argument to show how the- difficulties could be met. The Government would not pass legislation which would hurt any individual deliberately. He emphatically denied that' he was undermining the industrial and arbitration legislation. The evidence given before the Committee showed that farmers did not object to the wages, but wanted a freer hand in regard to conditions. He appealed to members not to obstruct the Bill because he had no doubt that the Government’s majority' could force it through, .but what good would that do? ••• Labour voices: “It will never; do

any good; throw it out.” The farmers were satisfied that the ' Act injuriously affected them, and l the - Government was putting the measure fdfcward, not as a full solution, but as a step in that direction, added the Minister. ' ~ ■ . . ' The Leader of the Opposition (Mr H. E. Holland) agreed that a great deal of good, might come from a free discussion. The Minister appealed for a non-party discussion, 1 hut the * Reform -' Party would have done better not to -have held a caucus on the matter. .They had made a. party matter of the Bill. A . free discussion could ; be held, but the Bill should" then be withdrawn with 'a

. view of having conferences next year. ...The Minister would get further that way than by forcing the Bill through. Mr Holland said he had jnot received any requests from farmers in his electorate fo support the Bill. He hoped no attack would be made on the farmers. But did the farlners want men to 1 work ' .longer hours and have inferior accom- :' modation ? Those matters came under ■rithe category of conditions. If the Act were not applied to the farmers the employees could only have recourse to the strike, and the farmers to the lockout.

U “CO-OPERATION ESSENTIAL” Mr Eorbes said the industrial machinery of the country was very delicate and co-operation on both sides was essential. No good purpose would be served by forcing such a Bill through before a conference was held. . The workers had

lights, and no Government should look ’at only one side. The Minister would probably not get an agreement at a conference, but it would give an opportunity for the public to form ah appre- , ciation of the position. If farmers got outside the Act he believed'it would be a_case of out of the frying pan into the lire, and an endeavour would be made to get back again. It would be realised that we could not get along without arbitration. ; ■ Mr W. D. Lysnar hoped there 'would ' he no confusion about the conference which should ho called to consider, not 1 what was in the- Bill, but what had been left out of it. No good could come 1 of a confererice to consider the farmers' position.. The farmer was a hard working man, and had no time for the agitator whose position the Labour Tarty was anxious to; safeguard. He hoped the Minister wool,d stand,to his post and see the Bill through. Already there had been an indication that the Labour Party was going tor use all the forms of the House to prevent the Bill going through, but he did not mind if they had to stay there for three days. “Let. us go right on,” said Mr Lysnar, “even if we have to sit here and only adjourn for meals.” Mr E. J. Howard admitted the difficulties through which farmers were passing. Objections to arbitration had once comp from the workers who were critical of the slowness of machinery which could not keep wages abreast of rising prices. Now that prices had fallen it was the employers who objected to the Arbitration Court. 'llia, authors of the agitation had always been against arbitration. Mr D. Jones expressed an opinion based on the amendments which had been circulated that those who opposed the Bill were not serious. Twenty years ago a judge of the Arbitration Court held that it.was impossible 1o apply the methods of the factory to fire farm.

“BILL NOT NEEDED”

Mr R. AloK'een pointed out that there were no signs of an award for farming industries, therefore the Bill was not needed. The Labour Disputes Investigation Act was unsuitable for farmers because it would simply result in legalising strikes.

EXCLUSION FROM THE ACT OBJECTED TO BY LABOUR PARTY , LONG DEBATE IN PARLIAMENT BLOCKS PROGRESS ON AMENDMENT BILL (By Telegraph) (From "The Mail’s” Parliamentary Reporter). WELLINGTON, This Day. The Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act Amendment Bill was taken in committee by the House of Representatives yesterday. A long debate developed in which the Labour Party, standing firmly for the inclusion of farmers under the operations of the Act, blocked progress on the Bill. Early this morning progress was reported to allow of a conference—before to-day’s sitting—of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister of representatives of fanning interests in the House.

PROGRESS REPORTED

WELLINGTON, This Day

Mr E. Walter supported a conference. He did not like'the idea of dairy workers being left unprotected. Hie Minister would be very wise to postpone the Bill and bring forward a new measure next year. He admired the Labour Party for the attitude they had adopted and he complimented,them on their conciliatory SP Mr 'B- G. R. Mason considered it might bo worth while applying the suggested change in the constitution of the Court to farmers only. Were he a farmer he would not like the assessors on the Court to bo chosen from city interests. ■’ ' . , ■ Mr E. D. McLennan ■ urged that nothing should be done; to create a spirit of unrest between the employers and dairy factory workers. They should try to create a spirit of mutual dependence and goodwill.. He was afraid that if the legislation was put through they might create a breach and make a gap that did not now exist between the farmer and. his employees. It . would be bettor to have a conference in the recess with a view of putting into effect legislation which was mutually agreed upon. Where employees were treated with fairness and consirieratiorf they would respond arid give 'their best endeavours l . Nothing should be .done to: take dairy workers from under the Act until the position had been further examined.

- WELLINGTON, This Day. ■ The debate on the Arbitration Bill was continuing at midnight and there was no sign of progress being made off the short title. Mt Coates said, lie regretted that he had not'had an opportunity of hearing all of the discussion. Mr.D. G. Sullivan: “It has.been most peaceful.” v Mr Coates: “I am glad to hear that because it is a, matter of tremendous importance to this country. Nothing has a more important bearing on the future of this. country than the question we are discussing.. So far as I am concerned I desire hon. members to feel that I am not one of those who would be a party to do anything which would drag down the worker. So far as I have a say in matters his condition and welfare must. be. considered.”

THe question that the committee had to consider was what was the effect of ilie existing system on the principal industry of the country. The present system fixed, the costs upon the farmer without any reference to his position and the farmer was up against it. He wanted to get rid'Of something that lie 'felt was tying him down and getting him bent and old after a lifetime of work.. The Arbitration Court, from .the farmer’s point of view, was having the effect of putting a load upon, his shoulders that he could not afford to pay. Mr W. E.' Parry: “You will always have that under a national system of organisation.” AMr Coates: “What is this country’s great national industry?” Mr J. A. Lee: “What is it producing, men or butter?”

The Prime Minister: “It is all very well talking; it is prosperity that counts.” If loads were placed upon men that they could not 'bear then the natural result must be to undermine prosperity and bring about poverty and misery. , Every person in tins country depended upon, the primary industry. Mr F. N. Barlram: “There is the other side to the picture.” The - Prime Minister said that the moment the country’s exportable wealth fell everybody felt it. 'lhey had to look at the matter from the point of view of “•New Zealand and Coppany.”" p Mr E. J. Howard: “New Zealand Unlimited,.” Mr Coates: “New Zealand and. Company, we are all in it.” He was a fanner although he could not help'it. A number of people said that he could not speak for the farmer • he could only speak from the farmer’s point of view as he saw.it. ; -■ . Mr W. D. Lysnar: “You want to but others are pulling: you back.” Mr Coates said that the farmer was asking for relief but the farmer said that it was the Arbitration Court that was responsible for his position. The Arbitration Act was never intended to enter into the ra/nifications of the farming industry in the way it had. done. He asked members whether the farmers meant to pull down wages. Mr Parry: “What is the object of the Bill if it Is not to reduce wages?” Mr Coates: “I say the object of the Bill is not to reduce wages. Mr Bartram: “When what is the object?” , Mr Coates: “The object of the Bill is to bring the farmer and his employee into closer contact.” • Mr J. A. Lee: “By destroying the bridge. *■ The Prime Minister denied that this was so, but said that- the object was to try to bring about a common understanding. , tt The Loader of the Opposition (Air H. E Holland): “How does the Bill make that possible? What is the machinery that will bring the farmer and .the other fellow together? ’ -. ; Mr Coates: “If I understand the labour disputes- ” ' Air Holland: “It makes it possible to have a legal strike.” Mr Coates said that the farmer looked to Parliament to see that his interests were protected. •Mr Lee Martin: “Like they did with the Control Board.” Mr Coates*. “What does the 1 lion, gentleman mean? 1 have no regrets over the Control Board, none whatever. Control was useful and, properly understood, it would give the best value.” Mr Martin: “It never had a chance.’ Mr Coates: “It is just a, question whether it ever had a chance.” Mr Sullivan: “Suppose we get on with the job.” , The. Prime Minister said that if farmers were struggling and could not get their heads above water the House bad to direct attention to their position.

All day yesterday the question whether farmers should ho exempted fiom the operations of the Arbitration Act was debated by the House. J ho Labour Party was united in urging that the measure should be withdrawn so that a conference might be held in the recess to discuss the desirability of amending the law in the manner proposed, and several Reform members supported this

attitude. After midnight it was apparent that a stonewall was likely to develop if the Government attempted to force the measure through at that sitting, and it was agreed at 1.20 n.m. to report progress so that a discussion might take place this morning between the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister of Labour and representative of farming interests in the House ns to the Best course, io adopt regarding the measure.