AGREEMENT WITH FARMERS' UNION

Southland Times, Issue 22969, 15 August 1936, Page 8

AGREEMENT WITH FARMERS' UNION

SOME CRITICISM OF BILL “DEFECT OF RIGIDITY” (From our Parliamentry Reporter.) Wellington, August 14. “This Bill is the result of a conference between the Farmers’ Union and myself along with officers of the Labour Department,” said the Minister of Labour (the Hon H. T. Armstrong) when explaining the main provisions of the Agricultural Workers Bill following its introduction by Governor-General’s message in the House of Representatives to-day. After a general discussion, which lasted about an hour, the Bill was read a second time pro forma and referred to the Labour Bills Committee. At the conference, said Mr Armstrong, a discussion had taken place on the conditions and wages of agricultural workers. He had found that certain conditions acceptable to sheep farmers were not acceptable to dairy farmers and vice versa. In those circumstances he considered the best thing to do was to get the Farmers’ Union to meet him in sections. The main provisions of the Bill were in conformity with an agreement entered into at a conference with the dairy farmers’ section of the union. He agreed that the fixing of hours of work in the dairy industry was more difficult than in most industries. “A great many farmers are not members of the Farmers’ Union,” said Mr S. G. Smith (Nat., New Plymouth). He referred to the position of small dairy farmers selling milk to towns, and pointed out that a man with nine cows would escape the effect of the legislation whereas farmers with a herd of 10 cows would be affected. Public Works Rates. The difficulty the farmer would experience in obtaining labour at the wages prescribed in the Bill in view of the higher rates paid on public works jobs and by way of relief in the cities was mentioned by Mr C. A. Wilkinson (Ind., Egmont). “This Bill,” he said, “will make a clear line of demarcation between labour on the farm and labour engaged in other work. The pay and hours are completely out of line with the conditions and hours in other industries. The Labour Governmentt is deliberately going to offer very low wages to the best workers in the country.” Mr D. W. Coleman (Lab., Gisborne): Will you support an increase? Mr Wilkinson: Yes.

“I want to compliment the Minister on having consulted the farming industry on this Bill,” said Mr W. J. Polson, (Nat., Stratford), who, as president of the Farmers’ Union at the time, was one of the parties to the agreement. If the Government had taken similar steps with other matters affecting the farmers, Mr Polson continued, there might not have been the acrimonious discussion and criticism that had been stirred up throughout the country. “All through the discussions with the Farm-

ers’ representatives,” Mr Polson said, “the Minister took up a very reasonable attitude. The circumstances of the industry were carefully examined. Although the Minister has not said so the price the farmer gets for his products in future years will from time to time affect the rates of pay. If the price rises I hope the farmer will be able to pay a higher rate of wages. The rates set out in the Bill are an experiment for a year, but they will give the farm labourer a generally better wage than he has been getting in the past. If conditions in the industry improve the farm labourer will share in that improvement. The Bill should please farmers because it will keep them out of the contentious atmosphere of the Arbitration Court. We want to pursue our own path with our workers and settle our difficulties by mutual agreement.” Not Elastic Enough. The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates (Nat., Kaipara) said that the Minister should explain how sharemilkers and their families and the families of individual farmers would be affected by the legislation. He did not agree that farmers were wise in entering into such an agreement. It had the effect of rigidity, whereas the dairy industry, even if it was operating on a fixed price, demanded the maximum of elasticity. The Leader of the Opposition (the Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes) suggested that the wages paid to men on public works and not the rates laid down in the Bill would be the real basis of farm wages. The attraction of the conditions and the wages on public works undertakings would be so great that ablebodied men would be taken away from farms. There would be a scarcity of farm labour with the result that the farmer would be forced to pay higher wages than those stipulated in the Bill. The Minister of Public Works (the Hon. R. Semple) had laid it down that every man on public works jobs would ultimately be given a wage of £1 a day and already men on those jobs were earning, in many cases, as much as £1 a day. That was the rate for unskilled labour in the country and the result would be that the rates which farmers would have to pay would be higher than the rates mentioned in the agreement.

“This Bill lays down the minimum, and it does not prevent a farmer, paying as high a wage as he likes,” said the Minister. “One would think we were doing something to reduce wages paid for farm labour. If the minimum of £2 2/6 is criticized it should be remembered that board and lodging goes with the wage.” Payment For Wet Days.

It had been contended that the new farm wage compared unfavourably with the rates operating in the Public Works Department for labourers, continued Mr Armstrong, but it should be recognized that the farm worker would receive his wage whether the working day was wet or fine. On the other hand the Public Works employee was not paid when rain prevented work and it was doubtful if a man on public works would average a higher wage over a period than a farm hand. The Bill did not affect members of a farmer’s family. Sharemilkers came within the provisions of the legislation in respect of the accommodation which must be provided by the employer. Wage rates could be revised upward or downward when the guaranteed price was altered at the end of each season. This would be done by Order-in-Coun-cil, but always within the spirit of the agreement with the Farmers’ Union.

EVIDENCE TO BE TAKEN LABOUR BILLS COMMITTEE. (From Our Parliamentary Reporter). Wellington, August 14. Evidence on provisions of the Agricultural Workers Bill will be taken from interested parties by the Labour Bills Committee of the House of Representatives on Wednesday morning, according to an announcement made to-day by the Minister of Labour (the Hon. H. T. Armstrong). The Minister said that full consideration would be given to the views of organizations that wished to approach the committee, but it was hoped that the Bill would be reported back to the House as soon as possible.