MUSTERERS’ AWARD

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21598, 19 March 1932, Page 11

MUSTERERS’ AWARD

THE MACKENZIE COUNTRY LABOUR ATTACKS GOVERNMENT ACCUSATION OF LAW-BREAKING (From Oor Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, March 18. Accusing the Government of law-break-ing, 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 the award rates of pay and the amount paid by the employers under the recent agreement with the men. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr H. ( E. Holland) explained that in October ‘last, two or three months before the men were required to begin work, they had been advised by the large station owners in Canterbury and Marlborough that unless they would work for considerably less than the award rates they would not be engaged. This was a hardship, as they had incurred heavy expenses. He (Mr Holland) had advised them to accept under protest and notify the employers of their intention to sue for the balance. The employers had replied that they were acting under instructions from the Sheepowners’ Federation. Mr Holland said he understood that nine stations were affected, involving £l5O or £2OO. This Bill checked any action against the employers. The Prime Minister (Mr 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 that the sheepowners had approached the Government and had pointed out that the awards affecting them did not expire until December 31, 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 that 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 whereby 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 in the high country throughout New Zealand. 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 mutual agreements whereby less than the award rates of pay could be accepted. Mr Holland: And you became a 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 the 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 would have if the award had been enforced. — (Loud Labour laughter.) Mr T. D. Burnett (Temuka): Quite true.

Mr J. M'Combs (Lyttelton): We can easily imagine you would approve. The Prime Minister said the union secretaries had then stepped in and declared that the awards could be enforced, and cases were brought against the employers. The big sheep owner was looked upon as the enemy of all mankind, especially by the Labour Party, which refused to give him justice. Mr P. Langstone (Waimarino) immediately launched an attack upon the Prime Minister and challenged his statements, declaring that he was giving a concession to big wealthy friends that would react detrimentally to the 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 from the workers. 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 license property. In one instance 70.000 acres were carrying only 5000 sheep, or one sheep to 14 acres. Mustering on 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 ot between 3£d to 4d a pound, and the surplus stock was practically unsaleable. The Crown was faced with the imminent danger of much of the land falling back on to its hands, and it would become a liability in that noxious weeds and other pests would have to be attended to. The parties were quite justified in 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. Ihe agreements had been made to tide the workers and the employers over difficult times, and this was a case in point where the arbitration system had proven to be directlv disadvantageous to the working man. Mr Burnett said that he was sure he would receive an almost unanimous vote of approval in Canterbury for his attitude on the question, and he proposed to go into the division lobby to protect both the employer and the worker. “In my electorate —the Mackenzie Country,” he said. “I would get a 90 per cent, vote of confidence.” Mr Langstone: The sheep would vote tor you. ~ The Leader of the Opposition said that in the first instance there had been a unanimous agreement between the sheep owners and the workers as to the 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 the economic stress to compel the men to accept tho 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 illegal Mr H. T. Armstrong (Christchurch East) said the Government had given its friends, the right to legalise robbery. They ought to be in gaol and the Prime Minister with them, he said. The chairman; Order. You must withdraw. Mr Armstrong; Well, may I say that there are better men than the Prime Minister in gaol? The chairman: You must withdraw. Mr Armstrong; Very well, but the Standing Orders cannot prevent me thinking what I would like to say. The closure was finally carried and the clause was retained in the Bill.