FARM LABOUR

Evening Star, Issue 22440, 10 September 1936, Page 2

FARM LABOUR

THE AGREEMENT DEBATED WABE STANDARD CRITICISED M CMPARISI9N WITH PUBLIC WORKS [Feom Oob Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, September 9. The legislative pace is slowing down. The House spent to-day on the motion to commit the Agricultural Workers Bill, speakers coming from all sides, and extensions of speaking time being liberally granted. The Minister of Labour (Mr Armstrong)'mentioned;'when replying, that lie intended to move a small amendment to the provision: prohibiting the employment of boys under 15 on dairy farms, so that persons already employed would not be displaced. He called attention to the lack of protests against the measure from farmers, who took a keen interest in politics, and were well trained to protest when necessary. Every farming member of the House.would agree, be declared, that the decent farmers paid the minimum wages mentioned fn the Bill when butter-fat was lid par lb, -whereas to-day the Government was guaranteeing Is Id. Mr Wilkinson: They are not growling about the wages, but about not getting the men. The Minister’s answer was that everybody could not get on public works, and, as a matter of fact, the Minister of Works had pretty well reached the maximum number of men he was likely to take. The placement officers of the Labour Department had reported that tbcro were few demands for farm labour, hut when made they were promptly supplied when wages and conditions were satisfactory. Referring to the prohibition of juvenile labour on farms, the Minister said the Bill specified 15 years; but he believed in raising the school leaving age to 16. and providing that this should be the minimum age for employment. However, the country had not yet reached that stage. That the modern farm labourer requires more knowledge and skill than those of years ago was the contention of Mr Roy (Clutha), discussing the Bill. He also expressed the opinion that, in comparison with labourers on public works, farm labourers were_ required to exercise more skill. Farming, said Mr Roy, had developed into a highly scientific business, and in handling stock apd land the labourer had to he a man of some ability. Mr Barclay: He is worth his £2 2s • week.

Mr Roy: I say lie is worth more than that, but the farmer, on the other hand, is in the unenviable position of not being able to pay his men well. The farm labourer to-day is the farmer of to-morrow, Mr Richards: On 30s a week?

Mf Roy went on to say that the farm labourer must have greater knowledge of machinery, and of the soil than th# worker of years ago, and in respect to stock there were many more diseases than were formerly nnderstood. The portion of the farmers was that they could only pay wages out of proportion to those offered on public works, where, according to a recent statement, the men averaged 17s a day and some up to 245, while the farmer, instead of 40 hours, had to work a 60hour week. Even if the public works were offering only the same wages, men would still prefer works camps to the isolated life on farms. This was the experience in the old days, when men went to large stations at low wages rather than take jobs on single man farms, where they hadi no companionship. He believed every member was receiving complaints from farmers of inability to obtain labour. The result was the appearance of more tractors, because the farmers could not K*t men to handle their teams, though tractors in the end were not such a good proposition on farms. There was also greater demand for milking machines. The age limitation of 15 on agricultural workers was excellent, if made Universal, but the difficulty was that, owing to existing conditions, more farmers’ wives, boys, and girls would hare to assist, and therefore the Bill would increase instead of reduce juvenile labour. Another point was that, while the farmer under the guaranteed price had to pay bis men £2 2s and found, the price left the fanner in the position of getting less than his employee.

The declaration that the Government was in a hole in respect to the farm workers was made in the House by.Mr Wilkinson (Independent, Egmont) in condemning the Agricultural Workers’ u ’v. 11 ■^ e farm worker is to be bought and sold just the same as any other commodity,” he said. Mr Wilkinson explained that, under the Government’s policy, men would be employed on public works for some years. There would be stability and continuity for these men. but the farm worker was badly treated in comparison. Even taking into account wet weather deductions, the wages of the public works employee would l be greater than the pay of Jhe farm hand. The rates of pay and hours and conditions on public works would draw all types of workers from the farms, and although some men who were farming might struggle on in the meantime, the work on farms would come to a standstill. Mr Meachen (Wairau): There will be a limit to the number engaged on public works. Mr Wilkinson said that in dairying districts it was impossible to get farm workers. The Minister of Labour had been apologetic when introducing the Bill. He did not think the Minister or the Government was proud of the measure. It divided workers into two classes. Farm workers were on the lowest level, all other workers _ being above them. The Minister said it was to be a trial for a year. The Minister of Labour (Mr Armstrong) ; I ' ave fixed a higher rate than for any other class of worker. Mr Wilkinson said enough was not being done for the farm worker. He was put on the basis of horse value. Under the Public Works agreement 8s fid was paid for the hire of a horse for one day. That was the rate the farm worker would receive.

Mr Thorn (Thames): What did you do? You did not move a little finger to help the farm worker. Mr Wilkinson said the Bill was an indication that the guaranteed price had been fixed at too low a level. It was insufficient to enable the farmer to pay wages on a scale comparable with other industries. In addition to the farmer having to pay on the scale provided under the Bill, he had also to contribute by taxation for the men on public works. He wanted to know why the Minister had made an agreement with the Farmers’ Union in connection with payments to farm workers. The worker on the farm was bought and sold, but the worker himself had no say. The farm worker was obliged to work seven days a week for £3, equal to about lOd an hour. The men would not be content with that, considering that the Public Works men would receive £4 a week of five days. He compared the farm workers’ remuneration with the scale laid down for sustenance. A man with two children could receive up to £1 19s a week, and was allowed to earn an additional £1 3s for doing odd jobs. If an agreement similar to that made for the farm labourer had been made in auv other industry there would be a howl. The Public Works man was provided with housing accommodation free of charge, and if he became sick was taken to hospital. The farm worker got £3 a week and “nothing else. The Public Works agreement set a standard no farmer could follow. He could not supply social facilities and meeting halls. Mr Smith (New Plymouth): You are stirring them up all right. Mr Wilkinson said t’-e Government had failed completely with the Bill. He most disappointed. ' OTHER FACTS OF DEBATE

THE BILL COMMITTED [Per United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, September 9,

Mr C. H. Burnett said the Bill was a real effort on the part of the Government to give the farm labourer his fair share of the pound of butter. There always were difficulties over farm labour when a Public Works policy was being prosecuted. It had to be remembered that the Public Works employee was paid only for the days he worked, whereas the farm labourer was paid, for every day. He hoped provision would bo made later by which farmers could borrow money to build houses on their farms for their labourers. He had not met a farmer who objected to the reasonable increases provided in the Bill. The farmer was now given a definite price for his product, and would be able to budget so that his workers received decent wages. He thought the proposals were reasonable and fair.

Mr Barclay thought provision should be made for married men to go on the farm. The farmers had been spoilt to a certain extent in the past in being able to recruit farm labour from single men, but that day was past, and he

thought the solution lay in the providing of houses for married men. No difficulty was experienced in getting sharemilkers if accommodation was provided and the sharemilker would get little more than the farm labourer under the Bill. He suggested that the farmer should be granted a loan to provide a cottage tor married labourers. The cry of the difficulty of securing farm labourers was largely made for propaganda purposes. The farm labour problem was being exaggerated for political purposes. Mr Hamilton said that if the other rewards were made out of proportion to the rewards for farming they would not get people to stay on the farms. The standard of wages was not set by the earning power of industry. Mr Armstrong: We have set the earning power by fixing a price.

Mr Hamilton said the standard was not very high yet. He went on to say that wages might be increased under an award, and he asked the Minister to say if the wage - mentioned in the Bill was final.

Mr Armstrong said l that would be left to the court.

Mr Hamilton said the provisions of the Bill were much preferable to an award, and if the Minister would say the wage mentioned was final not so much objection would be taken to the Bill. New Zealand had developed a wonderful farming industry, and it had been done without regimentation and standardisation.

Mr Chapman said the Bill was just a commencement, and the wages provided were not high. The Bill aimed at improving the conditions of farm labourers and giving them some measure of protection, which they badly needed. Farmers would have to keep books, but that should not cause them any trouble. Mr Broadfoot said the Bill was an indication that the Government’s industrial legislation had been ill-con-ceived and put through without much thought as to consequences. The result could not be foreseen. As far as he could see it was not possible to place hard and fast conditions on the farming industry. The farm worker was not one of the favoured sections of the community. He had no 40-honr week and had to work seven days a week for wages materially lower than those paid to industrial workers. On the holiday question, too, the farm worker would get a raw deal. The industrial worker would get 104 days of rest as well as public holidays, while the farm worker would get only 28 days. The farmer wanted the exchange value of his product. If he had that he could pay wages that would compare with any other industry. Mr Thorn said Mr Ison’s attitude had been exceedingly helpful, and he should be thanked for it. The farm labourers could not have been consulted before the Bill was framed because they had no organisation. In its absence, the Minister took the only reasonable course open to him, and consulted the only organisation available, the New Zealand Farmers’ Union, and the conference was very fruitful. He claimed that the farm labour problem was considerably exaggerated by members of the Opposition and some publicists outside the House. He said that in January, 1934, the total .umber of herds in the Dominion was 42.579, and they were divided into the following categories;— From one to nine cows, 11,653; 10 to 19. 5,788 ; 20 to 39, 10,340; 40 to 59, 7,155; total, 34,936. Herds between one and 39 numbered 27,781, or approximately two-thirds of the total, and it ’could safely be said that they did not depend upon the labour market for workers to milk cows, and that also was largely true of the 7,155 farms of between 40 and 59 cows. It was true in many cases that the farmer had the help of grown-up sons. For those reasons the problem was almost wholly confined to the owners of herds of from 60 upwards, and they numbered 7,643, a comparatively small number compared with the total.

Mr Dickie said that probably farms having between one and nine cows were mixed farms, and he claimed that 50 cows provided plenty of work for two men. He did not blame any man for leaving a farm at £3 a week to take work on the public works. Farm work was often, unpleasant and meant isolation.

The debate was carried on by a number of other members on both sides of the House on the lines of arguments used earlier in the debate.

Mr Semple reiterated the steps he had taken to prevent men leaving farms to go on public works, Mr Armstrong, in reply, said it seemed that the members.of the Opposition had to speak against anything that was introduced bv the Government. He thought when the public works were fully supplied and the shops and factories filled there would still be enough labour left for the farms. There must be a limit to the number of men who could be employed on public works, and he thought that limit was about reached. The legislation was needed only to keep the most unscrupulous farmers in check. He had been in touch with farmers in many parts of the Dominion, and with very few exceptions they approved of the Bill, and had made few protests against it. Ho claimed that a 1 per cent, reduction in interest would give more relief to the farmers than a 10 per cent, reduction in wages. He said that when the Bill was ’'efore the Labour Bills Committee and evidence for and against it was sought, the only farmers who appeared were some who were outside the Bill and who wanted to be included. If the farmer wanted labour he had only to notify the department and lie w'ould be supplied, but not at a pound or 25s a week. He said the basic wage would not apply to farm labourers until they were brought under an award, and lie would prefer to see the Bill given a trial for a year or so before considering bringing them under an award.

The motion for committal was carried, and the House rose at 10.15 p.m.