INTERESTING TO FARMERS.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIII, Issue 9133, 30 April 1908, Page 2

INTERESTING TO FARMERS.

In his address before the Conciliation Board on Tuesday, on behalf of the sheep owners in the farm labourers’ dispute, Mr H. B. A eland said the Hon. W. P. Reeves, in his book, “State experiments in Australia and Hew Zealand,” reierring to’the question of the regulation or labour, stated that a grave responsibility rested on the plaintiffs in an industrial dispute in getting evidence together. He would say that, in this present case the plaintiffs had not appreciated that responsibility. He submitted that regulation meant constant friction in the country districts, in which an extraordinary amuouc of give and take. It would also interfere with family’ life. The evidence regarding married couples showed how difficult it would be to distinguish between family life and the farming, business. Further regulation would reverse the policy of the Government and people of the country, which was to settle the small man on the ' land and encourage the independent settler. It would bring the Arbitration Act right into the farmer’s house, and would mean that the farmer would be under the domination of an award, a sort of impossible octopus. The Act was designed to prevent strikes and lock-outs, but the conditions under which_ farming was conducted were so varied that such a thing as a strike occurring at any rate a strike that would affect the consumers was unlikely. He stressed the point that the farmer could not pass on the increased cost of production to the consumer, as the" manufacturer was able to,do, and lie emphasised the fact that, unlike the manufacturer, the farmer, if an award ' were made, could not make his calculations on an ascertained basis. He further contended that no dispute existed. They did not want any manufactured conditions tnat would suit neither master nor man. Awards in other disputes had practically fixed and regulated existing conditions. An award in the present dispute would alter all the social conditions of those affected by it. All the evidence showed the demands were simply those of a few extremists in Christchurch. The .farmer said to such: “Leave us alone and attend to your affairs in town. We don’t want you in the country- You will gradually ruin it, because you do not understand the conditions.” The evidence further showed that the so-called, “Agricultural and Pastoral Labourers’ Union” did not represent the agricultural and pastoral labourers. He auestionod whether any award could deal satisfactorily with the farmer who also took employment on the farms of others in the event of an award being made. He did not think the Board could seriously entertain the idea that people should take into their houses all and every class and description of man. The Farm Labourers’ Union was a close corporation, and excluded farmers’ sous, Mr Thorn dissented from this statement. Mr Acland pointed out tire importance of character in farm employees, especially in the case of fanners who had families. He knew from professional experience that ruination had come to families owing to an undesirable getting on a man’s place and staying there. An award would tend to make a dividing lino between the farmer and the worker. At present there was practically no such division.