NEW LEGISLATION

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 194, 15 August 1936, Page 10

NEW LEGISLATION

AGRICULTURAL WORKERS MINIMUM RATES OF PAY MEASURE BEFORE HOUSE [Per Press Association] WELLINGTON, Aug. 14. The House met at 10.30 a.m. The Agricultural Workers’ Bill was introduced by Governor - General’s message. The Hon. H. T. Armstrong explained that the Bill was the result of a conference between the- Farmers' Union and himself and officers of the Labour Department. Conditions and wages were discussed, but it was found that what was acceptable to sheep farmers was not acceptable to i dairy farmers, and vice versa. He • later met the dairy farmers' section of the Farmers’ Union and the main pro- . visions of the Bill were in conformity with the agreement entered into at that conference. The Bill repealed the Farm Labourers’ Accommodation Act. 1908. and the amending Act. 1912, but provided that Orders-m-Council made under those I Acts should continue in force, so thet though the Bill repealed those two Acts the provisions were embodied in : the present Bill, which dealt not omy i with accommodation, but with working conditions, and fixed for the first time the minimum rates and wages to be paid on dairy farms. The definition of a dairy farm was difficult to arrive at. but it had been decided that a dairy farmer would be anybody who milked 10 cov.s or more and produced milk for sale to a factory or anywhere else. It fixed the minimum wage of the dairy farm , worker at 16 years of age at 17s 6d • a week, with an increase of five shillings a week each year up to 21 years, | After 21 he would be paid £2 2s 6d a . week with board and lodging. Where* board and lodging were not provided ■ 17s 6d would go added to the wage. Where board and lodging were not ■ provided the wage would be £3 a week. Hours and days off. etc., were dis- : cussed at the conference. The Bill provided that workers should be given : one month’s holiday on full pay, plus • boarding allowance, for each year of service or one week for each three j months of service. The holiday must • be taken at a time convenient to the i employer. The provisions would oper- ' ate either from its passing or from the first of next month. Opposition Criticism Mr. C. A. Wilkinson said that the ! farmer would have difficulty in secur- I ing farm labour at the wage fixed, when the wages paid for other works ; were considered. Asked if he would, support the increase, Mr. Wilkinson ! said that he would. The principles of • the Bill were entirely wrong. Mr. W. G. Polson said that the wage j would be governed to a certain extent, by the payment the farmer received, : so that as conditions improved wages i would improve and the conditions of ‘ workers would be made better. The provisions would be welcomed because they would keep the farmer out of the contentious atmosphere of the ■ Arbitration Court. The Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes asked if the Bill would supersede the basicwage. Mr. Armstrong said that Bill simply j laid down the minimum rate. A far- ■ mer could pay more if he liked. He i doubted, considering the broken time i on relief works, if these workers I would receive more than the wage I provided in the Bill. The sharemilker’s wage was not fixed by the Bill. He was in the same position as the farmer, but the Bill did apply to a sharemilker’s employees. The Bill was read a first time and | a second time pro forma and re- : ferred to the Labour Bills Committee. | Mr. Armstrong asid that there was no provision in the Bill that the wage would automatically increase in proportion to the increase in the price the farmer received for his product, but there was provision to review I wages each year when the guaranteed price was fixed. That would be done by Order-in-Council. i Civil List Amendment. The House gave further considera- i tion in Committee to the Civil List Amendment Bill, Opposition members criticising it strongly, Mr. S. G. Smith urged that the un- ' der-secretaries should be limited in number. The provision that members of the Legislative Council could be ! appointed should be deleted. Mr. Savage said that he would be | getting £BOO or £9OO less man he | would have received had he not en- j tered into the arrangement about ’ pooling salaries. The only increase under the Bill would be -in the salaries of the under-secretaries and an undersecretary would be appointed where there was a job for him to do. The . Government was not going to run up j expense that could be avoided. The Government, was not going 1o throw . money around to assist its friends. Mr. Forbes suggested that the num- 1 ber of under-secretaries should be limited to about four. Mr. Savage: “That is about, thei number we will appoint right away. ’ The short title was still under discussion at the lunch adjournment. The House resumed at 2.39 p.m.. and the short title of the Civil List Amendment Bill was passed soon after resumption. On Clause 2, Mr. Kyle moved an amendment with the object of prohibiting members of the Legislative Council from appointment as under-secret ai / . but this was negatived by 40 votes to 13. TTcommittee stages were completed end the Bill was r°ad a third time and passed. The House itself into Com-mittee-of-Supply to consider departmental estimates, the discussion being almost wholly confined to questions arising in members' own constituencies. Reference was made to tuberculosis ic cows and Hon. Lee Martin assured the House that steps would be taken to deal with the position. The vole amounting to £635,172 was passed. The Customs Department \ute amounting to £113,540 also was passed. Progress was reported and the House rose al 5.20 p tn