LABOUR BILLS COMMITTEE (REPORT OF THE) ON THE AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS' ACCOMMODATION BILL; TOGETHER WITH MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. (Mr. TANNER, Chairman.)

Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1907 Session I, I-09

Amended Edition.

1.—9.

1907. NEW ZEALAND.

LABOUR BILLS COMMITTEE (REPORT OF THE) ON THE AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS' ACCOMMODATION BILL; TOGETHER WITH MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. (Mr. TANNER, Chairman.)

Report and evidence brought up on the 7th September and 11th October, 1907, and ordered to be printed.

ORDERS OP REFERENCE.

Extracts from the Journals of the House of Representatives. Thursday, the 11th Day of Joey, 1907. Ordered, " That a Committee, consisting of ten members, be appointed, to whom shall be referred the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill and oertain other Bills more particularly referring to labour ■ three to form a quorum : the Committee to consist of Mr. Arnold, Mr. Alison, Mr. Barber, Mr. Bollard, Mr Ell Mr Hardy Right Hon. Sir J. G. Ward, Mr. Poole, Mr. Tanner, and the mover."—(Hon. Mr Millar )

Wednesday, the 31aT Day of July, 1907. Ordered, " That the Agricultural Labourers' Accommodation Bill be referred to the Labour Bills Committee "— (Mr. Flatman.)

I—l. 9.

1.—9.

RBPOET.

The Labour Bills Committee, to whom was referred the Agricultural Labourers' Accommodation Bill, has carefully considered the same, and recommends that it be allowed to proceed, subject to the amendments shown on the attached copy. William W. Tahnbk, 6th September, 1907. • Chairman.

1.—9.

[Note. This evidence was omitted from the original paper. It is now inserted in its proper place.] Friday, 9th August, 1907. William Henry Westbeooke examined. (A.) 1. The Chairman.] What are you ?—Secretary of the Wellington Trades and Labour Council. I am more particularly concerned, on behalf of the Council, as to the definition of " agricultural labourer." Does it include " flax-mill employee "1 2. Hon. Mr. Millar.] It does not include them as the Bill stands? —As far as my experience goes in the country, particularly in regard to flax-mills, I think the employees are equally in need of reasonable accommodation as agricultural labourers, and in some respects more so. Agricultural labourers are generally located near a homestead, whereas the flax-mill employee is fifteen or sixteen miles away from a township, and relies entirely on the employer for his accommodation. _ The Council is of opinion that, so far as the accommodation to be provided is concerned, a tent is not sufficient if it is intended to apply to the homestead. 3. You are speaking mainly on behalf of the flax-mill employees and odd men? —Yes. I wish to give some instances of what I saw in connection with flax-mills. There is one mill at Himatangi, about four miles out of Foxton. I think it belongs to a man named Cooley. I found there a whare measuring about 12 ft. by 14 ft. with a 7 ft. stud. There was no attempt at ventilation beyond the door, it had no floor'but the ground, and it had twelve men sleeping in it. .1 do not think the men could get out of their bunks all together—there would not be room for them. They work at a place eight or ten miles from civilisation, and the road would tax any one to get there on wheels. The men have to live in this whare: they have nowhere else to go. I found round the door of the dining-room—a fairly large one—or a few yards from it, a rubbish-heap consisting of empty tins and bones. The men had to spend their Sundays there. There is another instance: lam .not sure about the owner of the mill, but it is the only mill there. I forget the name of the place, but it is about ten or twelve miles south of Wanganui. There was a fairly large whare there, but the owner objected to my inspecting it too closely. In a small place about 8 ft. by 10 ft. I found two bunks, the engineer skewing in one and the cook in the other, and between the two the food for the men was piled up. 4. The Chairman.] That was the place where the supply of food was kept?—l am not sure that they had no other store, but I saw the food there stored between the two bunks. I looked into the dining-room and saw the meat stored round the walls where the men took their food. There is another mill near Shannon, on the Tokomaru Swamp. I saw an ordinary four-roomed cottage there, with two rooms in front and two behind. One room was used as a.storehouse, one as a dining-room, and another had eight bunks in it. It was an ordinary small working-man's cottage, but the place was indescribably dirty. 1 never saw anything like it before in my life. To get into the door you had to go over your ankles in mud. I said to one of the men, " Surely you can do something to improve the place in the matter of cleanliness? " and he said, " Look where we have to go to get anything ; there's not time." 5. Could they not have laid a few logs there? —They could have done so. 6. All those places were connected with flax-mills? —Yes. I could go on giving instances for a long time. I might say that I found one mill with excellent accommodation. Not far from,the Foxton River I found two mills with huts 10 ft. or 12 ft. with two or three men in them. They would have accommodated four men, but generally there were only two, and the men were fairly comfortable. I mention these cases because it is obvious that, if one millowner can run his business by providing good accommodation, there is no reason why another should not be compelled to do so. I was speaking to Mr. Seiffert, a man remarkable for the good accommodation he provides for his men, and he emphatically says it pays him to do it because he gets a better class of men. I might say that previous to the coming into operation of the arbitration award I am satisfied that Mr. Seiffert could have got men for less wages than other men in his line. My evidence was collected with the view of inducing the Arbitration Court to include the provision of proper accommodation in the award. The Conciliation Board recommended certain accommodation for the men, but Mr. Justice Sim said it was not advisable to put anything in the award touching the accommodation at all. He made a recommendation that the millowners should provide good accommodation, but he might just as well have recommended them to pay good wages for all the attention they paid to it. Some of the employers themselves or representatives admitted in Court that there was great need for better accommodation in some of the mills. 7. Is it the case, with regard to flax-milling, that a contractor will often agree to cut flax on a particular property when he is not owner of the lfmd at the same time? —Often. 8. In that case would you suggest any alteration in the Bill which would make him responsible for the accommodation I —The contractor must have a lease of the place before he puts his mill up. I recommend that the millowner should provide accommodation.

3

1.—9.

9. In that case you would not hold the owner of the land responsible? —In cases, the owner of the land where the mill is may not be the owner of the flax, which may be miles away. 10. Did you find anything of the nature indicated by some witnesses of sanitary neglect on the part of the men ?—I must say that in some cases the places were very dirty. 11. Was it susceptible of improvement on the men's part?— Yes, in some cases. In places where the whare is on a swamp, and the men have a distance of slime to go through, it is very difficult to keep the place clean. 12. I suppose in most cases the whare is put in the most central part?— Yes; but the flaxcutters in the swamp have a tent generally. 13. Hon. Mr. Millar. .] Do you think 240 ft. enough air-space for sleeping accommodation?- — I think it is a fair space. 14. I do not suppose there would be any way of getting over the necessity for tent-life for men working outside: would portable houses be any improvement?—l hardly think it would be workable. It does not necessarily follow that there is a road through the swamp. So far as flaxmilling is concerned, there is very little flax cut in the winter generally. 15. The Chairman.] Most of it is done in the North Island?— Yes; there are 2,400 men employed here now. 16. Hon. Mr. Millar.] If we made the Bill apply to what is called " homestead accommodation," so far as providing the air-space is concerned, then the tent could apply to the swamps, as the hills in the case of the agricultural labourer I —Yes. 17. The Chairman.] Then you would include " flax-mill employee " in the scope of the Bill?— Yes. 18. Mr. Arnold.] You say there are over two thousand employees in the flax-milling industry? —There are about two thousand. 19. They have a union?— Yes. 20. And I presume you represent their views? —I am not authorised to do so, but I may say I do. 21. You have sufficient knowledge of them to say you represent their views?— Yes. 22. The Chairman.] What class of men do you generally find employed in flax-mills? Could they be described under one heading? —If you take Foxton, where they have some eight strippers going, you could not help remarking, as I did the last time I was there, that the flax-mill employees are the finest class of men in New Zealand. If you go into some of the remoter country districts there is a slight difference. They have good men, but it is apparent to every one that the best class go nearer civilisation. Taking him all through, I find the flax-miller quite up to the level of the ordinary man. 23. How do they spend their Sundays, as a general rule?— They must spend them at the mill in most cases. Some go into town if they have bikes. 24. Did you find most of their camps fitted with the means of getting a fire? —No. I think they should be, because a number of the men get wet. 25. And they have no means of drying their clothes?—No, not generally. 26. You found many of the places without any facilities for a fire?— Yes. I would like to mention the water-supply. In many instances they had nothing but swamp-water to use. When the Conciliation Board was inquiring into the matter it was found that the water was not fit to be used at all. 27. And you did not find any measures taken to insure good water being provided for the men? —No. In some cases there is a natural supply.

4

1.—9.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.

Friday, 9th August, 1907. George Sheat examined. (No. 1.) 1. The Chairman.] What are you?— Farmer, resident at Dunsandel. 2. How long have you been a farmer?— Twenty-five years. 3. What size farm have you been cultivating ?—Three thousand acres. The point I want to emphasize is in connection with the camping-out. A number of farmers, like myself, have scattered places. 4. What do you mean by " scattered "I —Not always in one block. Some are separated by ten or twelve miles. In such cases men cannot go into the homestead, and they are put into camps, and for the convenience of shifting they have a narrow whare. Farmers are in the habit of putting two men in a whare, and we think that in a case like that the Bill should not be made to apply. The men prefer to be together. They have their little stove in it and their bunks, and they are as snug as bugs in a rug, as the saying goes. The Bill asks us to give a certain air-space in that kind of whare; but there is a little window in it, and the men have the bracing air of the Southern Hemisphere, as has been stated already. We concede this: that there may be some instances around homesteads where the men have not had the accommodation they should have had. It is recognised that in some instances in Canterbury the men have been roughly provided for, but to make a drastic rule to compel every employer who breaks the Act to come continually before the Court is, to say the least of it, going to be harassing. Very often my son goes out with some of the hands, and they prefer to work together, and would prefer to break the Act, but I, as the employer, should be brought before the Court. With regard to mustering in the hill country, Mr. Teschmaker, who wished to be present to-day, pointed out that it would not be possible to take the tent accommodation on to the back country. The men are only there, perhaps, one night, and they would not bother to take it out. To these cases Ido not think the Act should be made to apply. I think the scheme for the settlement of villages would be a good one. We want to get our workers on the land and identified with agricultural pursuits. In that way we should do away with a lot of this labour-unrest. There is a large field for them, and they would go on rising like ourselves. lam one of the old settlers' sons. In the old days—in 1842—it is marvellous how they lived, and reared sons of my calibre. I. want to emphasize this point, that it seems to me that we are having too much grandmotherly Legislation. In a little ten-by-twelve house they used to rear a whole family. There should be a provision to make it incumbent on the men to keep their houses sanitary. In the homestead they have a place 10 ft. by 12 ft., with a fire alongside, for a sleeping-room for three men. In harvesttime they might have four or five. I asked my wife if the men kept their place sanitary, and she said they kept it like a pigsty. My wife and daughter put it in better condition, the walls were distempered, and the floor was clean enough to take .your food off it, but I went into it the other day and found it like a pigsty. I think some provision should be made to protect us, and compel the men to keep their places clean and sanitary. 5. You think that men should be held responsible for the sanitary condition of their accommodation when it is sufficient for them?— Yes. I may say that personally I do not object to this Bill, because I think it will make some people sit up who have not provided sufficient accommodation ; but one swallow does not make a summer, and, taking agricultural labourers as a whole, they are well housed. The employer wants to treat his men as one human being should treat another. There is a growing sentiment in the direction of providing better conditions for the men. In the Dunsandel district three or four settlers have given their men the use of two or three acres, and built them cottages, in order that they may retain their services in the place. 6. Is there any flax-cutting in your district? —No; there is only one mill. 7. You are speaking of the conditions in the old settled agricultural district?— Yes. 8. Hon. Mr. Millar.] Is it not a fact that the best agricultural labourers are leaving because they are taking up land under the Settlement Act?—No; there is a tendency for men to go into the towns. !). 1 have ascertained that your best agricultural labourers are taking up land for themselves?— Yes, the saving men are those who ultimately become the employers. I think it should be the aim of every farm labourer to become eventually an employer. 10. With regard to the suggestion by Mr. Teschmaker, what provision would you have for waterproof tents ?—lt was the air-space he referred to. It is too large. 11. There is no mention in the Act about air-space in tents. It says, "A sufficient waterproof tent or a building." They are two separate things?— Then the air-space would not apply in that case. It was misunderstood. 12. You think yourself that it is necessary a man should have a tent to sleep in if he is likely to be out all night?— Yes. 13. Air-space is only mentioned when it is a travelling hut?— Then it was misunderstood. The huts are built in particular places so that the packmen can take food to the men. 14. Mr. Poole.] You would not advise the continued use of sod huts?— No. 15. Have you known cases where men have been badly treated?— I have never heard one. 16. Do you think it pays a farmer to be good to his men?—l am positive it does. 17. Can you give any reason why the men are so reckless in their habits in connection with the accommodation provided for them ?—Only this: that very often these men who are insanitary seem to be of drunken habits. We get wastrels from the towns foisted upon us who come for food and accommodation, and if you put these men into a hut they seem to lose all idea of cleanliness. In fact, they get covered with vermin, and one contaminates the other.

1.—9.

[g. sheat.

18. You think that drunkenness hag something to do with it?—l am quite convinced of it. 19. Mr. Bollard.] I suppose some of these men who are of insanitary habits make suggestions about better provision for them ?—No, they would not call your attention to it. My wife has cleaned the place for them, and they will not keep it clean. 20. Mr. Hardy.] Both Mr. Grigg and yourself speak of young fellows who have been brought up on a farm taking up land for themselves: is it within your knowledge that a great many young people look for employment in the centres? —Not only in the centres, but on the railways. As- a Justice I am continually being asked to give certificates as to upbringing and character of young fellows in my district with a view to their getting employment on the railways and in the large centres. There seems to be a tendency amongst them to get away from farm-life. That is why I think it would be a good thing to establish hamlets in order to give them an interest in farm-work. 21. There are greater attractions in other forms of life?— Yes. They have been reared in the country, and some of them would like to get away from it. 22. What is the ordinary pay of a farm labourer —a weekly hand?—it is according to their ability. 23. I mean a man able to manage a six-horse team? —£1 ss. to £1 6s. a week. 24. And for a man able to manage a four-horse team?-—£l to £1 4s. A general farm hand who can manage a reaper-and-binder, plough, and adjust a drill, can command at the present time £1 os. a week. 25. Does it require a man to be trustworthy and intelligent to do that work?— Yes. 26. How much does a surfaceman on the railway get? —I think it is either 7s. 6d. or Bs. a day. 27. Constant labour ?—Yes. 28. If such a man gets £2 Bs. a week for working on the railway, you can hardly expect a farm labourer to do what you say is exceedingly capable and intelligent work for a much less sum of money?—l would point out that one gets his food as well, and the other does not. 29. How much does it cost to keep a man?— Say 15s. a week. 30. You take 15s. from £2 Bs. and it will leave £1 135.; add 15s. to £1 ss. and you only get £2, or a difference of Bs. between the wages of the two men?— Yes. The railway-men are the bestpaid men in the colony, and I admit they are better-paid than those working on the farms. The better and stronger men are continually trying to get work on the railways, and we have to take all classes of men on the farms. 31. But a man who is able to look after a team of horses, manage a reaper-and-binder, probably adjust a drill, use manure, to see that the grain-feed is correct—would you not consider such a man a very high-class man indeed? —But we give that man a bonus of £10 during harvest-time. That is outside of his wages. A farm labourer's banking account will, I think, compare favourably with that of a man working on the railways. 32. The farm labourer does not often go to the theatre? —No, and it would be better for many others if they did not. David Jones examined. (No. 2.) 33. The Chairman.] What are you?— Farmer. 34. Where? —At Weedons, Canterbury. 35. How long have you been a farmer?—l have never been anything else: eight or nine years. 36. What kind of farm have you? —Agricultural. 37. What size is it? —Three hundred and fifty acres. 38. Will you make your statement in your own way before being asked questions?— Yes. We are not quite certain as to the necessity for this Bill. We believe that on the whole farm labourers are treated well, although there may be isolated cases where the reverse is the case. The Bill, as it appears to us, is bringing farm labourers under the same regulations as to accommodation as shearers. We have nothing to complain about so far as the regulation goes in connection with our homesteads, but we find that no provision is made for camp-work and hill-work, and also work in connection with threshing-machines, and so on, which is really part of camp-work. In connection with our regular hands there can be no objection to offer to the Bill providing for good accommodation, including air-space and ventilation, but we consider it is impossible to frame an Act which will be satisfactory so far as camp-work is concerned. That is the objection we have to the Bill as it stands now. We should also like to see provision made, if the Bill becomes law, to compel the men to keep their places in a sanitary condition, otherwise it is not fair either to the farmer or the labourer. That is briefly a statement of the position so far as it applies to us. Mr. Grigg, of Longbeach, is with us, and has a great deal of camp-work. He will be able to put that branch of the question before you at first hand. 39. Hon. Mr. Would not clause 11 meet the point you are raising: "For the purpose of this Act, accommodation shall be deemed sufficient if it consists of (a) a sufficient waterproof tent; or (b) a building, portable or otherwise, containing 240 cubic feet of air-space for each person to be accommodated therein "? Does not that clause cover camp and hill work?— Yes; but with threshing-machines you are always shifting. 40. Does not clause 11 meet the case?—l think not. 41. What is that intended for?—lt may be intended to meet it, but it would be a practical impossibility, where camp-work was gone into very largely, to give each person 240 ft. of air-space. 42. What is 240 ft.? 8 ft. by 6 ft. by 5 ft. high for each person. You provide 240 ft. in a factory. Is that not little enough for any person to sleep in ?—With regard to ventilation, the men fiave practically the Southern Hemisphere to breathe. 43. In the wagon?— Yes.

6

1.—9.

Richard Evans examined. (No. 3.) 44. The Chairman.] You are a farmer I —Yes. 45. How long?— Thirty years. 46. Where at? —My home is in Kaiapoi, but I could not tell you the number of places I farm at. Kaiapoi is my home generally. 47. What amount of land are you farming now?— Four thousand five hundred acres—a good deal of it sheep-country. 48. Mixed farming?— Yes. 49. Will you make a statement? —Yes. With reference to the proposed accommodation, I think the Bill is a reasonable one so far as concerns the accommodation provided round the homesteads. Ido not admit that there is any necessity for the Bill, but at the same time it will settle a vexed question. It is a reasonable thing that we should have to provide 240 cubic feet of air-space at the homesteads. With reference to camp-work, lam sure that if we sent out whares and tents with the required air-space you would find the men gathering together at night for the sake of the warmth and company. There are practical men here, and Ido not think you want to stop the settlement of the country. I suppose I employ an average of thirty hands, and a difficulty I have met with is the dirty habits of some of the men —especially swaggers. The permanent men will not allow such men to be in the same place. I have only 120 acres of land where 1 live, and I find that we feed and lodge on an average ten of such men a week. Possibly there is a reason for that. Perhaps I am a little bit soft, and live a short distance from a township. The greatest difficulty I find is that the permanent hands will not have this class of man near them. I gave a lodging to a man on one occasion, and he would not, actually, sleep in a room where my son had slept for fifteen y_ears —he was afraid to- —and he had to go and sleep with my other men. A man came to me and said, "If you do not get rid of this man I cannot stop in your place." I had to take a lodging for the man, and kept him for eight days until he found a ship, and afterwards I found that he did not go away in the ship, but stopped in Christchureh. We do not wish to put such a class of man in the same category as our permanent men. 50. You struck the "social pest" there?— Yes, I have struck a lot of them. Last Saturday my daughter had to give breakfast to four of such men, and we dare not leave our place without one of our own men in it. With reference to the regular hands, I think if the Bill is passed the men ought to be compelled to keep their places clean. I know a man who has a little station and who built a bath for his men, put in a looking-glass and a piano in their place, and what happened is too dirty to mention. When some of the men were leaving the place they did in the bath what I would not care to say. The Bill will decide a vexed question, but the men ought to be made to keep their places clean. 51. Is there a feeling of trepidation about the conduct of some of these men towards women on a large farm?— Perhaps. 52. Within your knowledge? —Yes. 53. On the whole, in some of these isolated places it is not advisable to leave them without having a trustworthy man about? —That is a fact, sir. 54. Have any cases occurred where women have been intimidated ?—Yes, where men come and demand accommodation. 55. They do not ask for it in the most courteous way?— They simply demand it, and in the most insolent manner. There is a feeling that if they are refused they will burn your place down. They demand it with as much right as if you were buying a ton of coal, and they go awaj r from your door with remarks of filthy insolence. 56. Mr. Alison.] You say that the provisions of the Bill with reference to the accommodation under clause 11 would be satisfactory so far as concerns the workmen near the homestead ?—Yes. 57. Assuming the men to be working away from the homestead, do you think the provisions of the Bill would apply harshly towards the employer?— Yes. In many cases I do not think it could be done. 58. The Bill will apply to all parts of a farm just as much as to the surroundings of a homestead? —I do not think you could make the Bill apply to chaff-cutting, threshing, and things like that, where you have to find a tent for the men. We read the Bill as providing 240 ft. of air-space in such cases, but that has been explained by Mr. Millar. 59. But supposing that a number of men are employed at a distant part of a farm, far away from the homestead, should there not be proper provision made for them?— Yes; but you could not always give them 240 ft. of air-space. 60. But a waterproof tent would be satisfactory?— Yes. Nobody lives in tents in Canterbury in winter-time. 61. Do the Committee understand you to say you would be satisfied with the Bill if provision were made to compel the men to keep their places in a cleanly condition? —Yes, round about the homestead. 62. Mr. Poole.] Do you know of any cases in North Canterbury where the farmers do not treat their men properly with respect to accommodation ?—I really do not know. lam told of cases that are bad, but I have never seen them. 63. From what you have heard, do you think there is any justification for bringing a measure like this before the House with the idea of putting it on the statute-book?—I think the question would be settled, so long as it could be made workable. 64. You do not think it would be a hardship to employers at the present time who are trying to be fair to their men ?—No. 65. Mr. Hardy.] You say the Bill should only apply to the home farm where the men are working?— Yes. Generally speaking, you bring the teams home on Saturday night.

7

I—9.

[R. EVANS.

66. You think it would be no hardship if only made to apply to the home farm?— Yes. 67. But you do not think it would do in the case of men who are working on chaff-cutters or threshing-machines ?—You could not very well apply it. 68. And in the case of musterers, where the huts are often up to 3,000 ft. or 4,000 ft. high, you do not think it should apply?—lt is practically impossible. 69. On many of the old stations they put huts in suitable positions for the musterers, and these huts are not large enough to give the air-space provided by this Bill ?—The huts are as good in their accommodation as those given us by the Tourist Department. They are as healthy as those given to tourists when going over the lakes. 70. You think it would be unreasonable for the State to require owners to establish huts in the hill-country with the air-space required?—l am sure, if you had two huts together on a hill, you would find the men gathering in one hut in order to keep warm. 71. The Chairman.] I would like to put this question to the whole of the deputation: Would you limit the provisions of the Bill to those persons actually employed by the owner, and leave it entirely optional in other cases, so that you would not compulsorily be required to provide accommodation ?—Yes. It should only apply to those actually engaged in weekly work. 72. You do not think you should have to provide adequate accommodation for those men who simply call on youl —No. If through our benevolence we put four men in a hut, the Inspector might lodge a case against us, and our benevolence would be our undoing. J. A. Grigg examined. (No. 4.) 73. The You are a farmer? —Yes. 73a. Where? —At Longbeach, in the Ashburton County. 74. Are you a large employer of labour? —Yes. 75. Can you give us an idea of the number you employ? —Until 1 cut up some of my property a little while ago I averaged 143 all the year round —that is taken from my wage-sheet. In future on the same scale it will be from eighty to a hundred. 76. That would tend to be a small hamlet or village?— Yes. There are two points only that I wish to refer to. One is that you cannot travel your teams or men further than a certain distance without a great waste of time, and it has been the custom to put a certain number of men in a certain number of houses. These houses may not have the amount of accommodation required, but still the men have always had excellent health. These whares are 16 ft. by ] 1 ft. and 11 ft. high, on wheels. 77. Hon. Mr. Millar.] How many men do they accommodate ?—The number varies from four to six in harvest-time. There is a big swing window, and a ventilatin.g-sh.aft in the middle of the whare. That is simply for sleeping in. Besides that there is an 18 ft, by 12 ft. dining-room on wheels separate from the cooking-galley. The point I wish to make is that there is a certain large roving population of swaggers about the country who raise an agitation on the ground that they are not housed as they ought to be. In the threshing-camps the men go on under contract and virtually provide for themselves, and perhaps in such cases the accommodation is not so good. If a law is passed that everybody is to have a certain amount of accommodation we think it would be unfair, because if a man pays for nothing he has no right to anything. There are only two countries in the world —viz., Australia and New Zealand —where a man can come in and demand accommodation free, and to understand why this is so it is necessary to go a little into the early history of Australia. 78. The Chairman.] That is by custom?— Yes. It really originated with the convict settlement of Australia, where the convicts were employed by the settlers. These men could not receive money, but had to be supplied with food and accommodation. 79. That was the origin of the custom? —Yes. Then the custom came across to New Zealand in connection with the swaggers. In Canada and the United States when I asked about the swaggers I was told that they had to show half a dollar or would get nothing. There are swaggers about all the year round, many of whom never made a pretence at work. Some never ask for it, and if you offer it they slink off. If the accommodation is improved under the Act and they are given comfortable quarters it may lead to an increase in their number. In connection with increased wages for agricultural labourers, if the farmers cannot afford to employ these men there will be a bigger roving population. I think provision ought to be made that if the roving population do not work they should not get the accommodation. They are a tax ou the farming community, and the farmer should not be obliged to give the accommodation. 80. Would you suggest that the Bill be altered so that the roving class of swaggers ?—Be not entitled to the same accommodation as the local men. 81. That this provision should be confined to the men actually at work? —Yes, regular hands. 82. If you use the term " regular hands " would that not exclude a large number of casual hands ?—I do not wish to do anything harsh, but there is a large number of loafers who are just waiting to qualify for the old-age pension. I have seen twenty of these men come along in one night, and the cost of the food is pretty large. We have always done it gratuitously and freely —certainly to good men —and if they are going to demand it as a right these men will increase in numbers and will have to go into the towns and be kept in some way. 83. Is the practice as common now as in former years?—l dare say, owing to the present dearth of labour, it is less than it was. lam also speaking for the men on the back stations, where they have to accommodate a very large number of musterers for a short time every year, and the accommodation provided for under this Bill would put them to very great inconvenience. 84. What was the size of the farm you were cultivating until you out it up lately?— Ten thousand acres.

8

1.—9.

J. A. GRIGG.]

85. Can you give us any idea of the tax imposed upon you, in money-value, by the custom you have been speaking of I —lt is some time since I made it up, but when I ran it out a few years ago it amounted to from £300 to £350 a year; about £100 now—rather over than under. I do not mention it on account of the money it costs. That is not the cause of the annoyance altogether, but I do not see why anybody should be able to demand food and accommodation for nothing. They all get food the same as the other men, the only difference being that they have to come in after the other men have finished. They may say, if this Bill passes, that they do not get proper accommodation, and may bring one before the Arbitration Court. It is not the good men who make the trouble. 86. Hon. Mr. Millar.] Your farm is supposed to be a model farm right through, is it not? — I do not know that—only so far as cultivation goes, perhaps. 87. It is generally looked upon as the show farm of the colony, and visitors are taken down to see it; so it is reasonable to assume you do give better accommodation than others, even in the huts on wheels?— There may be exceptions. I am certain that on the homesteads they can get all the accommodation they like. 88. Then, if this Bill were made to apply to the homesteads, and not to camp-work, a large part of your objection would be removed? —It would. 89. You do not want the sundowner to be able to demand a certain amount of accommodation if he comes ?—That is so. 90. So far as your regular farm hands are concerned, I understand you to say that you believe they ought to have reasonable accommodation ?—That is so. 91. Of course, shearers are transitory, and there, is reasonable accommodation provided for them now ?—Yes. 92. Mr. Poole.] Have you had any complaints from men in the whares about the limited accommodation ?—No, not to my knowledge. 93. They have been perfectly satisfied?— Yes. Once I put some men round a press where I store bales, and there was some objection to that, but it was either that or tents. 94. Have you ever had any trouble with men of bad or unclean habits? If so, have you had any difficulty in managing them on the farm? —There is that objection. The best men, of course,, keep their rooms clean, but some do not. Some years ago my father provided six or eight basins, with plugs, and water laid on, but some of the men broke the taps, pulled out the plugs, and the whole thing is lying there to-day useless. I asked one of the men about it, and he said they would rather take the water up to their bedrooms. It is not always in the master's hands to look after these things. 95. Can you account for the filthy habits of some men?—l cannot. 96. Keferring to the sundowners, do you find this section of the community increasing?—lt was a tremendous tax some time ago, but it is really decreasing. I think the co-operative works and railways took a number of them. 97. Mr. Bollard.] I understood you to say that so far as the ordinary accommodation is concerned for regular hands you do not object to the provisions of the Bill ?—I do not. 98. What you object to is that yoa should be called upon to make provision for swaggers and sundowners I —Yes. 99. The You spoke in the first place of the large floating population continually coming about and asking for work they did not want, and taking the first opportunity to slink away from it? —I do not say that is universal. 100. Later on you spoke of the co-operative works and railways absorbing a large number of the floating population, but on the co-operative works and railways the men must work?— Yes, that is so. I have no definite proof except that I have heard from time to time from men who have been working on the railways. 101. You have noticed a decrease since the co-operative works were first started? —Yes. 102. Does that leave the worst-disposed people floating about, or have they decreased? —It leaves a good many of them still. 103. Would there be any advantage, do you think, in establishing small settlements in which men in the neighbourhood of large farms or estates could live—to make a small hamlet, perhaps t Do you think that would lead to the settling of the population ?—Yes. My father, when he bought Longbeach, did cut up a small hamlet, and sold men a small area, and advanced money to build cottages, as well as building many himself. Certain settlers told him he would ruin himself, but he said these men would be permanent there. I have men who have been twenty-eight and thirty years there. There is one who has been thirty-one years there and has reared a family of twelve. Another has been there twenty-eight years and has a family of six. Four of our men bought land for themselves just a short time ago. Some of these men have told me they have saved as much as £50 a year. It has been mainly due to their father and mother growing vegetables and keeping a cow or pigs, and these sons have been able to save the money they earned themselves. My father's idea was to give the men an opportunity to save money and work up from the bottom. 104. You claim that it was a success?— Yes. Ido not think it will be so in future. There will be no farms large enough to employ that sort of labour all the year round. 105. I do not mean necessarily one estate, but if the hamlet were situated near a number of farms?— The principle is absolutely good. 106. Was there any school accommodation near your estate?— Yes, mostly from a mile to a mile and a half, with from forty to sixty of an attendance. 107. You think that might be imitated by the Government?—l think there is nothing that will keep people in the country so well as these little homes where families can be reared. 108. And you can always rely on the men?— Yes. Of the families settled on the place thirtyfi>e have children. There were 175 children about three years ago.

9

[j. A. GBIGG.

I.—p.

109. Eon. Mr. Millar.'] That is anchoring the men?—lt is anchoring the men. When they get about fifteen years the boys work for themselves, It is an absolute drag on a father to rear a large family, and it takes all his money, but when a boy goes out to earn wages he is established on the place and becomes a first-class man. The father gets large cheques when the boys are working up to the age of fifteen, and from that or. the boys generally get their own wages. If they went clean away the moment they left school the father would not get the money and the boy would not be able to save anything. I saw a young fellow who drew £150 out of the bank the other day. I asked him if he was going to get married, and he said, " No, I am going to get a leasehold." He said, " I have earned every one of those pounds from you in three years." That will give you an idea of what such families can do in this colony. These are the men who make such splendid farmers to-day. 110. Do these sons take places of their own? —Yes, but naturally their parents like them to be near them. 111. Mr. Hardy. ] Do you know anything about the Rolleston Village Settlement at Rakaiat— I do know something about it. 112. Is it within your knowledge that the late Mr. Rolleston established a settlement there for agricultural labourers?— Yes, but it was not altogether a success. In some cases the men were put on the wrong place, where the soil was too light. 113. lam speaking of one settlement at Rakaia where it was very good land. Can you say whether that has been a success ?—lt ought to have been a success if the people had backed it up, but I think the sections have been added one by one. 114. It is carrying a pretty large population, and the homesteads are as bright as any in New Zealand. Indeed, I think it is due to the late Mr. Ballance to say that when I drove him through he remarked, "Well done, Mr. Rolleston! to you belongs the honour of this scheme," and I thought it was a very fine compliment to pay from one great man to another ?—Where Mr. Rolleston failed was in putting the men in the wrong place, but the system was absolutely right. When you select a site you should be careful to get good land. Round the Hinds was established another settlement by Mr. Rolleston, but the land was too poor. Where it is good land it is an excellent scheme.

Friday, 30th August, 1907. Edward Kennedy examined. (No. 5.) 1. The Chairman.] Where are you living?— No. 6 Durham Street, Christchurch. 2. What are you by occupation?— Farm labourer. 3. How long have you been engaged in that work?— Nearly thirty years. 4. Where?— For the last twelve years in New Zealand. 5. Has your employment been permanent, or have you been casually employed —occasionally in one place and occasionally in another ? —Casually; but I was about four years in one place. 6. Have you had much experience in regard to the accommodation provided for farm labourers? —Yes, I have. 7. Have you seen the Bill the Committee are now discussing?— Yes. 8. On whose behalf do you attend here?—On behalf of the Canterbury Agricultural and Pastoral Labourers' Union. 9. Were you appointed their delegate to come to this Committee and give evidence on their behalf?— Yes. 10. Will you, please, having seen the Bill, and knowing the circumstances in connection with this matter, make your statement in your own way?—We think the Bill of Mr. Flatman does not meet the requirements of the farm labourers. Taking into consideration the conditions under which we are compelled to work and live in a great many places, we consider the Bill is quite inadequate. Taking the conditions where I myself and other men have been housed, I may say that I have seen better accommodation provided for cattle and horses. Some of the whares that the emplojrers provide are also overcrowded, and from six to eight men are compelled to live in a place of about 14 ft. by 10 ft., with no ventilation other than the door. Some other places are simply built of sheet iron, with no lining and no fireplace, but containing draughty cracks and holes through them. Other places, again, are built upon the clay floor, and contain any amount of vermin, including rats and mice. In some of these old whares with mud walls that I have been in you cannot keep the rats and mice out of your bunk. In some places you will find three tiers of beds in the whares, and there is no provision made for keeping the places clean. In one or two places that I know there are fifteen or sixteen men sleeping in them at a time, and some of the men are not cleanly in their habits, because it is next to impossible to be so under such conditions. There are very few sanitary arrangements provided in any of them, and in low ground there is no drainage. In one whare in the last place I was working at 11. In what district?— The Eyreton district—there was no accommodation provided but the bare walls of an old house with a roof over it. The floor was rotten, and had fallen through in places, while rats and mice ran over you at night-time. I used to tie myself up in a bed-tick to prevent them eating my feet. In some other places where I have been organizing for the Labourers' Union I have seen men living in very insanitary conditions. In one place in particular there was a brick building 12. In what district?— The Glentunnel district —it was on the side of a hill below the dwellinghouse of the owner, and the drainage from the house stuck underneath the building. The men working there got typhoid fever, and when they came after getting well they were dismissed because

10

E. KENNEDY.]

1.—9.

they would not sleep in the same place again. The walls of this place were overgrown with a kind of moss through the damp and moisture. In other places in the Methven district I have seen six and eight men sleeping in whares out in camps. Some of these whares are only iron frames ou wheels. In that district there are also slab huts with great cracks between the slabs, and you would not be able to keep a light burning in them if the wind was at all strong. In other places men are put in lofts over horses and cattle. In the great majority of these places there is no fire at which a man can dry his clothes when he gets wet. I myself have been working in a place in the winter-time 13. Where? —In the Methven district —where the whare was so cold at night that we used to go out and light a fire in the gorse fence. There were three of us there, and we got chilblains through the damp cold and heat from the fire, and suffered very much. In fact, from my own experience when travelling round in the Canterbury District, I can say that I have seen very few places where proper accommodation is provided. There are some exceptions, of course. I might mention the name of one gentleman in particular who has provided a place where the accommodation is everything that could be desired. 14. Whose place is that?— Mr. Studholme's, of Coldstream. 15. Can you give us the names of any others?— Mr. Leonard White, of Rakaia; and there are various other places in the Rakaia district. I think that is about as good a district for accommodation as there is in Canterbury. 16. Mr. Hardy.~\ Do you mean that it is as good or better than any other district in Canterbury?—lt is better. There are good places in other parts, but they are exceptional. In connection with the housing of farm labourers, I do not think we have received proper attention at all. We think we deserve such accommodation as Mr. Studholme provides. He supplies each permanent employee with a single room to sleep in, and there is a large sitting-room, with a fire in it whenever necessary. 17. The Chairman.] That is at Coldstream There are also three baths with hot and cold water laid on, and when I was there —I did not see Mr. Studholme myself, and do not know him —I was informed that he was putting up further accommodation in regard to sitting-rooms, as one was hardly big enough for the crowd of men that were there. As a body, the farm labourers think they should have a single room for each permanent man on each farm or station. It is terrible for a man to live and sleep in places where there are a lot of men together, because some of them are not clean in their habits, but filthy and dirty, and if any complaint is made a man is generally put down as a growler, and if he keeps on complaining he is sure to be dismissed. I have not seen many places where a bath is provided for the use of the men. There are a few exceptions, but not many in my experience. The bunks are two or three high, and some of the men will go to the nearest township and get drunk, and, as like as not, get sick, arid are then not very particular about those sleeping beneath them. As a general thing we consider the accommodation needs fixing up, and our union in its various branches, since this Bill has been brought before them, have passed resolutions against it. I have the resolutions here which have been passed by some of the branches. There is this one in particular ' 18. By whom?—lt was passed at a meeting at Chertsey on the 20th August. There was a mixture of people there of about half farmers and half workers. The resolution was carried unanimously without one dissenting voice. This is the resolution: "That any legislation that does not provide for separate sleeping accommodation for each permanent employee will not be satisfactory to the workers of Canterbury." The same resolution was carried at Rakaia. 19. On what date?—On the 24th August. The Temuka branch on the 20th resolved, "That the Agricultural Labourers' Accommodation Bill introduced in the House by Mr. Flatman, M.H.R., is so vague in its provisions as to be for all practical purposes useless, and if passed it will be a dead-letter." Another resolution passed on the same date as that at Temuka states that the accommodation provided by the Bill is a mockery, and is not intended to provide what it purports to do. At Taitapu—l have not the date of this meeting —they passed a resolution that the words " waterproof tent " be deleted from the Bill. The Leeston and Southbridge Branches passed a resolution that all whares be matchlined and properly ventilated. The Cust Branch also passed a resolution condemning the Bill, as also did Rangiora. As regards this Bill, we workers, with our experience of the horrors of some of the places we have to live in, think it does not in any way meet our requirements, and the members of our union will not be satisfied with the Bill as it now stands. It is ridiculous on the face of it to ask men working teams to go into a tent. They would have no accommodation to enable them to dry their clothes in wet or showery weather, because they could not have a fireplace in a tent, Again, in a lot of the whares where there are many men employed there is no provision made for a sitting-room with a. fire in it, which we think is necessary where there are more than two or three men employed, Where there is no sittingroom we thin!?; there should be a large room for the men to live in with a fireplace in it. We think the places should be properly ventilated and be kept sanitary and clean, and that some one should look after them. We also think that the recognised agent of the union should be allowed to go on to these places and see them when thought necessary, as we have very little confidence in the present system of inspecting whares under the Shearers' Accommodation Act, -~-., 20 Who does the inspecting under that Act?—l think the police generally. We think no Bill would be right unless representatives of the workers are given power to go and see these places and report to the Inspector, or whoever is supposed to inspect, 21 Does that complete your statement?-I think so. . , . , ~ 22 Mr Ell 1 The good accommodation you speak of is on the large farms, judging by the names of the owners you have given here?— Yes, that is so. There are some small farmers too who supply good accommodation. - _ . 23 You have not given us any instance of small farmers who have provided good accommodation ?_There is one place where I worked personally—Mr. Thomas WithelPs, Brook Bl de. The

2—l. 9.

11

1.—9.

[E. KENNEDY.

accommodation was for two men, and we had two rooms. One was used as a sleeping-room and the other as a sitting-room. The latter room had a fireplace in it. The place was healthy and clean. It was not a very old place, and was good enough. Even in that there was a little drawback-, because when the wind blew in a particular direction the chimney smoked through the place not being high enough. There are other small people who supply good accommodation, but I have only heard of these. 24. The instance you have given is the only place you can speak of from your own personal knowledge I —Yes. 25. And if similar accommodation were provided on all the small farms the workers would be satisfied?—l think they would. 26. Did the place appear to be a very costly one?— No. 27. What was the area of the farm—roughly? — About 300 acres. In another place I worked at —it was not quite so large a farm, and it was nearer to Christchurch —the accommodation provided was in the original house erected on the place The farmer, I think, rented the land and had a good new house put up, and his old house was used as a store-room —the bottom of it. It was very dilapidated, and a box was put up to stop the wind coming in. The fireplace was blocked up, and we slept in the loft. I had to put up a bag tent to keep a candle alight at night to read by. That was in the Riccarton district. 28. Many small farmers do provide decent■• accommodation for their men, do they not? — A great many of them do. The accommodation on the small farms is better, I think, as a rule, than on the big ones. 29. And your opinion is that if the small farmers can provide good accommodation there is no reason why all the farmers should not do so?— Yes. 30. And you think the men have a right to claim that they shall be decently and wholesomely housed? —Yes. We think that no other working-people are treated like we are. 31. Clause 3 of the Bill says, "The Governor may from time to time appoint Inspectors under this Act, and define the districts over which they shall respectively exercise supervision, or may assign the duty of such supervision, within such area as he directs, to any Inspector appointed under the Factories Act." Is that satisfactory—giving power to appoint Inspectors?— Yes. 32. And the Bill provides a penalty for obstructing any Inspector?—We do not think the Inspectors, if they are appointed as under the Shearers' Accommodation Act, would be satisfactory. 33. Clause 4 says, " For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act, every Inspector shall have the right of ingress and egress to and from any land or place on or in which any agricultural labourer is employed; and every person who obstructs any Inspector in the exercise of his duty, or refuses him ingress or egress, is liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds." Do you approve of that? —I think that is quite necessary. 34. So you think that in some particulars the Bill is all right?— Yes: but we think the last clause, in reference to a " sufficient waterproof tent," would enable any employer, if the Inspector objected to the accommodation, to put up a tent, and we object to tents. 35. Mr. Poole.] In connection with Mr. Withell's house at Brookside, was that house erected purposely for the accommodation of the men, or was it a former building in which Mr. Witheli lived? I think it was erected specially for the men. It was not old enough to be his former house. 36. Do you know of any cases where men when drunk and disorderly have wilfully damaged property and upset the arrangements made for them by their employers, who therefore say it is no good doing anything for them, because they do not appreciate it?—l think in some cases such things do happen; but the great majority of the workers are not that class of men. There may be one in a camp like that, and we think it is the duty of the employer to dismiss such a man. instead of making all the others suffer. 37. You would advocate the punishment of such men, although recognised members of the labourers' organization, for not maintaining order in the home?— Yes, I would. 38. With regard to the tents, of course, you understand the tent is not to be used at the homestead? —Yes. . 39 Sometimes the men are called upon to do some clearing or ploughing, and for convenience they have to camp out for a day or two, or are away from the homestead where it is impossible to erect a building or take a travelling whare. Do you not think that in the summer-time a waterproof tent would supply comfort enough for a night or two?— For a night or two, yes, so long as they are not permanent residences. 40 Are you and your fellow-workers under the impression that the tent is suggested as an accommodation-house at the homestead ?—No; but we are under the impression that if the accommodation was not considered sufficient according to the Inspector the employer could say, Very well, I will put up a tent." 41 I think they have a wrong idea about this proposal respecting a tent, because, as far as we understand it, the tent has nothing to do with the accommodation at the homestead?—l do not know what the intention was: we only went by the Bill. 42 The Chairman .l Read clause 11.—"For the purpose of this Act, accommodation shall be deemed'to be sufficient if it consists of (a) a sufficient waterproof tent; or (b) a building portable or otherwise, containing two hundred and forty cubic feet of air-space for each person to be accommodated therein." We fail to see anything in that to stop a man erecting a tent if the house he has is considered dirty and filthy. 43 Mr Poole 1 On sight, of course, the clause is pretty ambiguous, but I do not think with the evidence'we have had before us it was ever intended that this clause would make it possible for any man to erect a tent for the accommodation of Ids men near the homestead. But you are aware that at times men have to go away from the farm, and have to sleep on straw?— There are such cases; but we think that where men have to work horses, if they are only away for a week, a tent is not sufficient.

12

E. KENNEDY.)

1.—9.

44. There are exceptions on a farm where it would be impossible to erect a whare for a few days, and it is only a temporary provision I —l quite agree that it would not be right to put the employer to the expense of erecting a whare for a week's or a month's work, but we think that where men are working horses there should be a whare. We think that on big estates permanent whares should be put up and the whares on wheels done away with. There is one gentleman I know —Mr. Drummond, in the Baree district—who has a permanent place for his men, instead of using the whares on wheels. The men bring all their things in a dray, and we think all large employers should do that, seeing that the small employers can do it very well. 45. Supposing a farmer had a large wheat-crop, and had to send out a traction-engine and have eight or ten men in a whare, do you think it would be a hardship for those men to live in a tent in the summer-time? A traction-engine could not take enough accommodation around with her to provide the air-space required by this Bill % —Some traction-machine stations have fair accommodation. There is only one whare required. 46. Do you think that is sufficient?— No. I think there should be one whare with the tractionmachine, and some tents as well. 47. You approve of tents in that case?— Yes. 48 Provided they are waterproof ?--Yes. 49. Do you approve of this provision, then, as placed in the Bill?— Yes, for a specified sort of work. 50. What do you think of clause 6: " Upon application of an Inspector for an order under this Act against any employer, a Magistrate shall hear and determine the same; and if after inquiry into the case the Magistrate finds that no accommodation is provided, or is of opinion that the accommodation provided by the employer is improper or insufficient, he may determine as to what accommodation or what further accommodation, as the case may be, shall be provided by such employer '" ?—I think that clause is right enough. 51. You would be prepared to accept a Magistrate's opinion with respect to the accommodation?—l should like to see some one beyond a Magistrate if we were not getting fair play. In some cases the Magistrate might be biassed. 52. Take subsection 2 of this clause: "Every employer who fails to comply with any such order within such time as is thereby appointed is liable to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds, and to a further fine not exceeding two pounds for every day during which such default continues " ?—I agree with that. 53. Now, to balance this thing properly, would you be in favour of having a provision in this Bill to punish men who neglect the ordinary rules of nature and cleanliness—would you make the Bill a two-edged sword?—l do not think I would. There is a law to do so if it is only put into force. We think the employer's duty is to see that his men are properly housed, and that he should either dismiss such men or give them separate accommodation. 54. Do you think your organization would think that sufficient? Suppose a man did not wash himself, or spat about the place, and made himself objectionable? —I do not know what my union would do. I was only speaking on behalf of the men. 55. There are men of refined taste even working as farm labourers, and the Committee would like to have some provision made to meet cases where their comforts are upset ?—The great majority of farm labourers would like to have separate accommodation provided. Mr. Studholme has recognised that A man might be unclean in his habits, but we do not think he should be dismissed for that. His environment may have made him so. If a man is compelled to live in a dirty place with others in time he becomes like the others 56. We have been led to believe by evidence that if you provided separate accommodation for men they would all get into one place again for the purpose of friendship and company. Do you think there is anything in that contention? —No. I think there should be a common sitting-room for the men to live in where there is a lot working together, but the sleeping-accommodation should be separate. 57. You would not like to have two men put into one room?— No. Sometimes a man wants to read and another wants to sleep, and the light burning causes trouble between them. I might want to write or read, say, and the other man has no taste in that direction. 58. Eon. Mr. Millar. .] You said that the workers had no confidence in the inspection under the Shearers" Accommodation Act? —Yes. 59. You are speaking of the farm workers? —Yes. 60. Would you be surprised to learn that the Department lias official correspondence from the Secretary of the Shearers' Union in which he congratulates the Department on the administration of the Act and its working generally? —I do not know anything about that, but Ido know that on one place I was working the shearers were put into a room where we were sleeping, and we were all overcrowded. 61. How long ago was that? —Last year —about twelve months ago. 62. At what station? —Achray, in North Canterbury. 63. Do you know that in seven hundred cases the shearers' accommodation has been inspected and improvements have been effected therein during the last twelve months? —I was not aware of that. When I was working at Achray I heard the man say he was going to erect further accommodation, and every season he says the same thing. Perhaps he has supplied it since I was there last November. I have heard many men say there are a great many places in the back country where the accommodation is not according to the Act. 64. But you are aware that it is absolutely impossible to inspect every station in one year?— Yes ; but this Act has been in force some years. 65. In one year alone seven hundred places were reported on, and the secretary of the Shearers' Union stated that during the last twelve months no complaints were made?—l think the accommodation has become better for the shearers, but in some of the places the whares were put up twenty-five

13

1.—9.

E. KENNEDY.

years ago, and are still there. Some are simply mud cabins with sheets of iron over them. As regards the inspection, the way to make this Act work to the satisfaction of the workers is to allow some representative of the union to go and see these places and report To the Inspector. Men working on stations and farms do not like to make complaints, as they may get dismissed for doing so. 66. Can they not write to the secretary of the union?— Yes. 67. And the secretary of the union could send on the notice to the Inspector when the accommodation is bad I —They could do that. 68. Then neither the employer nor any one else would know who sent the information : Would that not be satisfactory ?—lt would be if the men would do it, but they would not. The great majority of them are afraid the employer will hear of it and they will get dismissed. 69. It is a poor look-out for unionism if that is the spirit that exists?—lt is the opinion amongst the majority that the employers will get the information. 70. That is the general experience in the formation of all unions, but later on when a union becomes established there will not be the same fear ?—I heard a' man say only last Saturday night, in a sitting-room, that if another man went to the meeting at Rakaia he would get his cheque in the morning. 71. I suppose you are aware that under the existing law action could be taken against that man ?—I was not aware of that. 72. The Chairman.] Can you give us the name of that man? —Mr. Hardy could. I mentioned it to him in the train and I think he mentioned the name. 73. Which hotel was it at Rakaia?—Mr. Hardy said it was in the Railway Hotel. 74. Hon. Mr. Millar.] Do you consider that 240 cubic feet would be enough air-space for each man ?—Tf there was only that space for a single man I think it would be very small. 75. That would be 8 ft. by 6 ft. by 5 ft. I—Mr. Studholme supplies single rooms for each of his men. The whares are 7 ft. by 11 ft., and I think the roof about 8 ft. That is what he told me was the size of the single rooms. 76. You did not take any exception to the Bill until you came to clause 11, which gave you an idea that the employers could substitute a waterproof tent and so forth. Suppose a clause to this effect was put in : "11. (1) The Governor may from time to time by Order in Council gazetted make regulations prescribing the nature and extent of the accommodation that shall be deemed to be adequate for the purposes of this Act, and for the maintenance of the same in a cleanly and sanitary condition. Provided that no accommodation at a homestead shall be deemed to be adequate unless every room in which agricultural labourers are to be accommodated contains at least 240 cubic feet of air-space for every person to be so accommodated nor unless in ■ cases where two or more persons are to be accommodated separate rooms are provided for sleeping and for meals and each room provided for meals contains a fireplace or other sufficient means for warming the room. (2) Such regulations may vary for different parts of New Zealand and for different times of the year." Would that meet the case instead of having a hard and fast rule in the Act? Regulations could be gazetted stipulating the space under certain ' conditions that should be allowed. You would not expect permanent accommodation to be put up for musterers on each station I —No. 77. There must be some elasticity with regard to the regulations: We can fix the amount of the accommodation at the homesteads ?—But in a lot of these back farms the men are accommodated in shifting whares. 78. Provision might be made to give suitable accommodation where men are at a given class of work for a certain time, but that accommodation would not be wanted where the men are away for a few days only?—On the large places where there are twenty or thirty men employed we think there should be permanent camps in different parts of the station instead of the shifting whares. 79. That would be for the Inspector to decide when he saw the nature of the place. You could not classify in an Act of Parliament the places that should have that accommodation? —I do not know that. 80. The Inspector would say what was suitable and adequate under the provisions of the Act. If the accommodation were not adequate he would condemn it and have it altered ?—Yes, he should have that power. 81. Can you suggest any other means for insuring reasonable accommodation without compelling the employers to provide accommodation that is not absolutely necessary?— The only way would be to do away with the top bunks in the travelling whares. There should be no more than three bunks in them. 82. Are there more than three in the average travelling whare? —Yes, sometimes six and eight. lam speaking of camp whares where they are away three or four months. I was working in one myself in which there were six bunks. It was a new whare and looked well, but there was no vent at all except the door and one little window at the side that did not ventilate the place at all On one occasion one or two of the returned troopers from South Africa came up and brought enteric fever with them and all the men in the whare were laid up for a week or a fortnight. I was working at the homestead too and saw these men, and when we opened the whare-door the stench nearly knocked us down—-there were so many men sleeping in it. I walked in, and it was nearly three weeks before I could get out of bed again. 83. Owing to the varying conditions throughout New Zealand it will be necessary to give a certain amount of latitude to the Department in deciding on the accommodation required?— Where there are more than one or two whares in one camp there should not be more than three bunks in each whare. 84. That might 'be fixed by regulation, and then the Inspector would not allow any whare to travel if it carried more —it would be an offence?— There s-hould also be accommodation for a sitting-room and a stove.

14

R. KENNEDY.;

I.—ft.

85. Would you have that apply to threshing-machine hands: Would you expect (hem to carry all that round with them?— No. 86. That is the difficulty I am pointing out: You would have to deal with each particular case by regulation ?—For permanent hands there should be some regulation by which the present state of affairs may be altered. 87. By my proposed clause 11 there would be ample power given to the Department after inquiry into the differing conditions to make regulations to suit the locality or particular branch of the industry: You would be quite satisfied if such a power were given to the Department to see that proper accommodation was given? —Yes, if that were carried out it would meet the position. 88. I suppose the employers who give good accommodation have no difficulty in getting good men and keeping them?— No. 89. Do you think it is the poor accommodation provided by some of the farmers that is causing the dearth of farm workers?—l have been told and know for a fact that scores —I might say hundreds —who have left the country to live in the towns would go back to the country if they could get decent accommodation. 90. It is the conditions which surround their labour that have driven them out of the industry? —Yes, they have told me so themselves. The best men in the country districts are going to the towns. In Christchurch you will find the best class of farm labourers working in the grain-stores and driving carts. These men have told me they would not go back to the farms again. They are not the loafers and weaklings, but they are forcing the weaklings out of the towns into the country, and the farmers have to put up with them. 91. Mr, Hardy.] When I was out of this room I understand you made reference to something 1 had said. Will you repeat that portion of your evidence?—lt was in regard to the statement of a gentleman at Rakaia, who said he would give his employee his cheque if he went to our meeting at night. 92. Did you tell the Committee the whole incident, or only portion of the truth?—l told the Committee how I came to know about it. 93. Did you tell the Committee that I had informed you from hearsay evidence that a young man who was the owner of a threshing-machine, with some of his men, had intended having a joke with you, and that the one said to the other, " Bill, are you going to the meeting?" and he said " Yes." " Very well," said the first, "if you go I will sack you," and immediately that man went up and said that a farmer had told his man that if he went to the meeting he would sack him?— Yes, I remember that, but that was not the part I was alluding to. 94. A member of this Committee has told me that you said I told you the name of the farmer?- — I understood you did mention the name. 95. Did I tell you the name of the hotel?— You mentioned one of the hotels. 96. Did I not tell you it was in one of the hotels—l did not know which 1- —No. 97. You are quite certain?— Yes. 98. Did you tell the people at the meeting that the farmer had told one of his men that he would give him his cheque in the morning if he went to the meeting?— Yes, I think I did say that. 99. And I said it was a pity, as it was only a form of joke on the part of the threshing-machine proprietor, on the understanding that they thought they would have a joke?— Yes. 100. The man who has the threshing-machine is named James Douglas. It was merely a practical joke?—l am under the impression that the gentleman you mention as being the threshingmachine proprietor was not the man I alluded to. 101. Have you heard of anything of this kind happening before—farmers threatening their men?— Yes. 102. In what district?—ln one particular district where Mr. Jones, the president of the Farmers' Union, lives —the Weedons district. 103. It was not Mr. Jones himself who said it?—l do not know. 104. Did you hear the man say it yourself, or is it only hearsa)' evidence?—l do not know the man who said it. 105. You heard of an employer who said to his men in Mr. Jones's district that if they went to your meetings they could receive their cheques in the morning, or words to that effect?— Yes; not particularly to my meetings, but meetings of the union. It is a generally understood thing in the country districts that the employees are intimidated. 106. Have you ever heard of employees being intimidated in the Rakaia district?—l cannot say I have I have not been a great deal in the Rakaia district. But from what a lot of men have told me at Chertsey it is so, and I think that place is in the Rakaia district. 107. Have you heard it yourself? —I have not heard it said personally. 108. Have you of your own knowledge heard any statements in which employers have intimidated their men on account of attending your meetings in the Rakaia district?—No, not personally. 109. The Chairman.] Your knowledge must necessarily come from men who attend your meetings? —Yes. I myself have been told in a place where I worked for four years and got to the highest position, that of leading ploughman, which I held for twelve months, that if I did not give up my position in the union it would not be for my own good. 110. Who told you that? —It was Mr. Deans's manager, Mr. Cocheran. 111. Mr. Hardy.] Did he tell you that unless you gave up this union business you would have to leave the farm?—He told me that if I did not give up this union business it would not be for my own good, and he was continually harping on it. 112. Is it within your knowledge that Mr. Deans approved of a union among his own menf — Yes. When I was offered the position of leading ploughman I told him about it. 113. Then why blame Mr. Deans on account of his foreman doing him a wrong?—l am not blaming Mr. Deans. I have the greatest respect for him.

15

1.—9.

[E. KENNEDY.

114. You know that Mr. Deans really approves of unionism? —I cannot say that he approves of it, but he made me timekeeper and leading man. 115. 'The Chairman.] Knowing that you were a member of this union? —Yes, I told him I was, and he gave me the job. 116. Mr. Hardy.] When he was owner of the place and approved of your position, is there any occasion for you stating what his manager told you, that it would be better for you if you did not belong to the union?— Mr. Deans used to manage the place himself. He put Mr. Cocheran on afterwards. Mr. Cocheran told me this when alluding to other men on the place, and said that it would be better for their own good if they gave it up. I believe that if I had explained the matter to Mr. Deans it would have been different. He is a man I have the greatest possible respect for. 117. You were not dismissed from the estate on account of being connected with the union? — No, I could not say that. The position was that it was made uncomfortable for me. From the time Mr. Cocheran came on he was against the union. He wanted me to go and pull down notices stating that an agent was coming up to address the men. From that time we had arguments about it. He was continually finding fault then, and Mr. Deans never found fault. One day when it was snowing we were to be sent to Glentunnel, to a swamp, but I would not tell the men to go. I went in to give Mr. Cocheran a week's notice, but he got in first. 118. I 1 he Chairman.] Did he force the men to go?— No. 119. It was on account of unreasonable and unusual terms that you refused to comply with that you dropped out of the service?— Yes. "120. Mr. Hardy.] Do you remember a conversation we had on Wednesday morning?— Yes. 121. Do you remember my saying to you that I heartily approved of the men banding themselves together for the sake of protection, and that I approved of unionism?—l believe you did say that. 122. Do you remember my saying to you that I did not approve of delegates setting masters against men and men against masters?— Yes, you said that. 123. That was the position I took up in the train when conversing with you?— Yes. 124. And you also remember my advising you to go about this sort of thing in a reasonable manner I —Yes. 125. That led up to the conversation about those young fellows having a joke with you in which you thought one was a farmer?— Yes. 126. The Chairman.] You have done a good deal of work in connection with organizing for your union ? —Yes, the greater part of it. 127. There are other men engaged in the same business in an endeavour to better the conditions of the agricultural labourers? —Yes. 128. Do you find that these men often get the name of agitators?— Yes. 129. Do you know that they are very often evilly spoken of and treated as general dißturbers? —Yes. 130. And that it is often difficult for them to obtain and follow their employment in peace and comfort? —Yes. ' 131. Also that there is a marked difference of treatment accorded to these men and other men who accept the conditions without complaint?— Yes. 132. What is your opinion of the Bill before the Committee: do you think it really meets the necessities of the case as it stands?—No, I do not think so. 133. Were you and your union under the impression (hat clause 11 provided that a sufficient waterproof tent would be a reasonable compliance with the Act?— Yes. 134. As the Bill then stood?— Yes. 135. From the votes which have been passed by branches of your union condemning the Bill you are of opinion that it does not in any satisfactory way meet the position ?—Yes. 136. You really want separate sleeping-rooms, a fireplace, proper sanitary arrangements, good ventilation, and a water-supply?— Yes. 137. You would be content if these primary conditions were complied with?— Yes. 138. And in saying that, you are speaking of the permanent hands?— Yes. 139. You think that on the large properties there should be permanent dwellings erected? —Yes. 140. And that men should not be accommodated in the shifting conveyances?— Yes. 141. You are also of opinion that a properly accredited representative of the union should have the right to see that proper accommodation is provided I —Yes. 142. And that you should have legal protection in doing so whether the employer employs unionists or not?— Yes. 143. And that he should have the right of complaint to the Inspector?— Yes. 144. You find from the laxity on the part of the men to complain that they would rather suffer the evils they have than complain of them? —Yes. 145. Would it prevent the trouble arising from overcrowding if the whares you speak of were licensed to carry a certain number of men in the same way as tramway-cars are licensed —that the whares should accommodate three men only ? —Yes; no whare should contain more than three. 146. You spoke of the best class of agricultural labourers being dissatisfied and crowding into the towns? —Yes. 147. And said that their places have to be filled by inexperienced and unskilled men ?—Yes. 148. Do you think that accounts for the inferiority of many of the men compared with those of previous years?—Yes. 149. In other words, the poor accommodation and conditions generally are responsible for the deterioration in agricultural labour generally?— Yes. 150. Would the difficulty be in any way met if permanent homes or cottages, especially near large estates, and the occupation of which would be independent of the employers on the neighbouring estate, were established? —I think it would.

16

1.-9.

E. KENNEDY.]

151. Whose duty would it be to provide such homes? —The Government, I think. 152. Have you had any experience of flax-milling?— No. 153. Do you think there is much done in Canterbury? —I think there is a good bit. 154. Do you know anything of the conditions under which the men employed by the flaxmillers live? —No. Some time ago there was some talk of better accommodation being provided for them, but I know that in the camps it consists of a tent generally, arid that not a very good one. 155. Is the inspection provided for under the Shearers' Act performed by the local policemen under the Labour Department?—l think so. 156. Have you heard of men complaining to the Inspector and then the Inspector going to the owner of the place and revealing the names of the men who made complaint?—l do not know of such a case. 157. Mr. Ell.] With regard to agricultural labourers in country districts settling down and getting married and working on neighbouring farms: Do you think men would be induced to do this if there were cottages provided with, say, four or five acres surrounding them in the different agricultural centres? —I think you would get married men to take advantage of those conditions. 158. Do you know of agricultural centres where there is a great want of cottages which the labourers might occupy?—l do not know of any district where there is such accommodation. 159. Then you think there is a need for such agricultural villages? —I think there is. 160. That is, small areas of land with cottages built upon them? —Yes. 161. Have you in the ordinary course of your travels come across agricultural villages with cottages standing empty on them with land about them? —None that I know of where they are supplied with any land. You might see some country villages where there is only poor land. 162. You think it would induce many agricultural labourers to marry and settle down and establish homes for themselves in agricultural centres if reasonable areas of land and cottages were provided? —Yes, I do. 163. Mr. Hardy.] Have you read this Bill of Mr. Flatman's?-—Yes. 164. Do you approve of it generally?— No. 165. What fault do you find with it over and above clause 11 I—There is clause 7: " Where any agricultural labourer is of the Chinese race the employer shall provide separate and distinct sleeping accommodation from that provided for other agricultural labourers, and any employer who fails so to do is liable to the penalties set forth in the last preceding section." I think that clause is very unsatisfactory. There should be some provision made for other coloured races as well as Chinese. 166. You think the word "Chinese" should cover ?—All coloured races. That is, all Eastern people, and negroes, too. 167. You have an objection to having aliens housed with Europeans?— Yes, a very strong objection. 168. The Chairman.] Would that objection apply to Germans or Swedes? —No. 169. Mr. Hardy. What would you do about Maoris?—My experience of them has not been much, but I think I would just as soon live with a Chinese as with a Maori. Ido not think there is much to choose between them in their habits. 170. What other portion of the Bill do you object to?—I think that and clause 11 are possibly the only clauses we object to. 171. Then you would not condemn the whole of the Bill for the mistakes you see appearing in clauses 7 and 11 ?—No, there are parts of it I would not condemn —there are parts that would be acceptable. 172. The Chairman,.] Do you say there should be some right of appeal?— Yes. So far as clause 9is concerned I think there should be a right of appeal beyond the Magistrate. Clause 4 authorises inspection, and I think an authorised agent of the union should have the right to inspect these places. It would make the Bill more workable and satisfactory. 173. Mr. Hardy.] Do you not think it would be better if the report were received by the Inspector rather than that the law should set out that an authorised agent of the union nhould inspect?—l think it would be only right that an authorised agent should have the power to inspect. 174. Do you not think you could trust the Inspectors of the Department to do this work?— Yes, if you had enough. 175. Do you not think it would be better to have Government inspection than to cause irritation ?—Yes, I think so. 176. Would that not be nobler than to have your own men going about? Do you not think it is always best to be noble and do the right) —Yes, but I think I would be doing right if T had the power to inspect. 177. You do not believe in doing evil that good may come of it? —No. 178. Therefore you think the Department is the best party to see that the law is carried out? — Yes, I think so, with a duly accredited union agent's assistance. 179. The Chairman.] Is your complaint that the inspection is insufficient? —Yes. 180. That there are not sufficient Inspectors or that they do not give sufficient time to the work of inspection ?—The union is of opinion that if the inspection that has been applied under the Shearers' Accommodation Act is applied to this it will not be effective —that it is insufficient. I certainly am of opinion that it either wants more Inspectors or some provision that the inspection shall take place at reasonable times. 181. Has any improvement been made in the shearers' accommodation since the Act was passed?—l think there has been. 182. So far as that Act is concerned the inspection has been fairly done?— Yes, as far as it has gone. 183. Then if this principle is extended and additional Inspectors are appointed the same effect will take place in regard to the accommodation of agricultural labourers?—l suppose it would.

17

1.—9.

|E, KENNEDY.

184. And you would rather it be done in this way than for members of your union to, as it were, act as informers—you do not believe in informers?— No. 185. If the Government appoints Inspectors they will not be blamed but praised for seeing that the law is enforced I —The Government might give them credit for that. 186. Do you know that the employee of to-day is the employer of to-morrow?— No. 187. Is it not a fact that most of the employers of Canterbury were formerly working-men?— Yes. 188. Then the employee of to-day is to all intents and purposes the employer of to-morrow? — No; the opportunities are vastly more limited to-day than they were in former years. 189. Is not this the age of progress?—l believe it is. 190. And the age of education?— Yes. 191. And if the worker has opportunities and is educated is he not able to seize these opportunities as well as his forefathers did?— Not under present conditions. 192. Then, education is of no value to the worker?—lt is of great value. 193. Does it not help him to become an employer later on? —Generally speaking, from my own personal knowledge, I do not think education has benefited him to the extent of making him an employer. 194. Was it not possible to get land years ago at .£2 an acre?— Yes. 195. Is it possible now?— No. 196. Mr. Hardy.] Is it not possible under the late Mr. McKenzie's Act to get land at £2 an acre and under? —I would like to know where it is. 197. It is within your knowledge that Cheviot was settled? — Yes. 198. It is within your knowledge that the Mead was settled?— Yes. 199. And that Highbank was settled?— Yes. 200. And that in plenty of places in South Canterbury men could go on to land at very reasonable rents?— Yes. 201. And that opportunities which old people had in the past have been, in consequence of the settlement of the people on the land, open to those who have been successful? —I do not quite understand that. 202. The Chairman.] Has the policy of settling people on the land been pushed far enough? --Certainly not. 203. Mr. Hardy.] You would like to see more land purchased by the Government for close settlement?— Yes, and made cheaper. 204. How do you mean, cheaper?—At a less price—the rents are too high. 205. You would recommend the Government to get land at a cheaper value than at present?—I do not know what I would recommend. There is one thing I would like to see brought in. I think if men working in the country districts got better wages it would bring down the price of land. I think the price of labour should go up instead of the price of land. 206. Your recommendation is that labour should be increased in value in order to bring down the price of the estate ?—I think it would do so. 207. Is there such a thing as killing the goose that lays the golden egg?—l never knew a goose that laid one. 208. The Chairman.] How do your wages compare with what was paid when you first came to Canterbury: Has there been any advance?—l think there has been. 209. As compared with those of twelve years ago?— Yes. 210. Mr. Hardy.] Has the price of tobacco increased? —Yes. I think I used to pay ss. 6d. and now it is 6s. 211. Mr. Bollard.] Do you think the price of farm labour should go up whether the farmer makes any profit or not?— No. Drainage Board Farm, Dear Mr. Habdy,-— New Brighton, October 3rd, 1907. In reply to your letter of the Ist instant re Edward Kennedy, for some time ploughman at Homebush. On my return to manage Homebush some three years ago, Kennedy was then head ploughman. I simply found him incompetent to take the leadership of men, so dismissed him. I remain, Yours faithfully, John Cochran.

Approximate Cost of Paper.— Preparation, not given ; printing 1,500 copies), £7 13s.

By Authority: John Mackay, Government Printer, Wellington.—l9o7.

Price 6d.}

18