EVENING SITTING.

Press, Volume XLVII, Issue 7611, 23 July 1890, Page 6

EVENING SITTING.

The House resumed at 7.30 p.m. imprest supply. The Imprest Supply BUI for £175,000 passed through aU its stages. EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY AOTP Mr Hislop moved the second reading of the Employers' LiabUity Act Amendment BUI, to amend the Employers' LiabUity Act, 1882. He explained that the object of the BUI was to bring seamen under tbe Act, and give them a remedy for injury, allowing the Court to assess compensation for injury, with a maximum of three years' wages, extending the time within which an~injured employee shaU give notice of action to one mouth after he shall become physically and mentally capable of giving it, the right of action being extended to six months from such time.

Mr Ballance congratulated the Government on bringing the Labor BUls forward at the earUest opportunity, and asked whether they would refer the measures to a Select Committee, that they might be examined in connection with simUar BUls in England. That would facUitate their passing in the House.

Mr Downie Stewart thought this BUI a most important, one, and be was glad the Government had taken up this question. He had some doubt whether the English BUI referred to tram-drivers. In some respects the BiU had not entirely satisfied him; for instance, with respect to contractors sub-letting to penniless persons. The notice of action principle was also a technical matter, of which employers frequently took advantage. He would dispense with such notice, and only allow it to affect costs. Then he thought a workman should not be deprived of the right to recover by the death of his employer, or because of .legitimacy, and that he should nqt work at his own risk with defective machinery; that the Judge should have power to allocate compensation among a widow and chUdren; that the circumstances of an employer making an advance to an employee should not be considered an admission of his liability. He hoped the BUI would receive very careful consideration* ' ' ■ - Mr Izard thanked the Minister for this BUI, which he regarded as an excellent one. He agreed with Mr Ballance, how* ever, that it should be referred to a Select Committee. The provision with respect to seamen was a wise one. He could not see why seamen should not be protected as well as other persons. He could not see, however, why a workman should not be in a position to bring notice of action in any reasonable time after injury was received. Mr Reeves (St. Albans) would not debate the BUI at all, but he ventured to remind the. House that speeches on it would come on just as well in Committee. He took it that their business now was not to make minute objections to the Bill, but reserve their amendments for Committee. The BiU did not stand by itself, there were several others coming after it. The proposal to refer those Bills to a Committee was a very good one, but he thought that this BiU was so clear in itself that it did not require being sent to a Committee at all. He appealed to the House to do their utmost to improve the whole of those Bills when they got into Committee. Mr Fish took a similar view. Mr Hislop thanked Mr Ballance for his suggestion to let those Bills go to a Committee, but he agreed with the member for St. Albans that this particular BUI did not require that course to be a .opted. The motion for the second reading waa agreed tc shipping and seamen's acts. Mr Hislop moved the second reading of the Sbippins and Seamen's Acts Amend-

ment Bill, to amend the Shipping and Seamen's Act, 1877. The Bill defined the nature of illness which shall entitle a seaman to the benefits of the Act, which shall be such as wholly to .Incapacitate him from the performance of his duty. Provision was also made for the payment of wages incase of illness in the case of Home trade ships. He detailed other provisions of the Bill. .____,•,, Mr Downie Stewart thought the! Bill was in the right direction, and he had no objection to it if a few slight alterations were made.

The motion was agreed to.

factories and shops bill.

Mr Hislop moved the second reading of the Factories and Shops Bill, to provide for the supervising and regulating of factories and workrooms, and for limiting thr hours of business in shops. The Bill •was entirely founded on the report of the Sweating Commission appointed by the Government during the reces9, and those gentlemen were entitled to great credit for the care they had exercised in carrying out their labors, and for the suggestions they had made. He referred to the various clauses in the Bill, explaining that they were taken from English Acts or existing Colonial Acts. With resect to closing of, shops, they had provided that shops should close all over the colony at six o'clock on week days and ten on Saturdays. The Bill was possibly one that should go before a Committee, as it was probable some local knowledge would be required in considering it. He therefore proposed to refer it to a Committee after the second reading. Mr Reeves (St. Albans) congratulated the Government on this Bill, although it was not by any means a perfect oue. He thought, however, that the sanitation proposals in the Bill were not satisfactory. The working of the Act depended entirely on the inspector, and also on the Board of Health. His opinion was that Boards of Health should not have so much to do with Factory Acts. The powers of inspectors were not at ail too great, and he was glad they were so sweeping as they were intended to be. He thought labor unions should have some voice in the appointment of these inspectors, and have some sort of check over them. If inspectors were appointed with whom labor unions did not agree there would be endless complaints from those unions. He objected also to the inclusion in a Factory Bill of provisions regulating the closing of shops, and he thought ib was to be regretted that the passing of a Factory Bill should be imperilled by a provision of this description, as they were totally different. , . , . , ~ Mr Fulton also congratulated the Government on this Bill, but he asked the Minister to drop the second part of the Bill, as although he heartily sympathised with the early closing movement, he did not think the time was ripe yet for embodying its provisions in a Bill of this kind. , __ Mr Mackenzie (Clutha) hoped Mr Hislop would adopt Mr Fulton's suggestion, and embody the portion of the Bill relating to the eaily closing of shops in a separate Bill. He referred to several provisions of the Bill to which he objected, but considered it altogether a step in the right direction. Sir G. Grey said they were dealing with all the most important questions in this Bill. There should be a considerable power of local self-government given in all these Bills, and he agreed with the member for St. .Albans that Union bodies should have a voice in the appointment of officers. Mr Hislop thought that Mr Reeves had rather over-estimated the powers of the Board under the Bill. With regard to the objections made to the inclusion of the early closing provisions in the Bill he pointed out that the precedent for that was the Victorian Bill and he saw no particular objection to it. The motion for the second reading was agreed to and the Bill referred to a Select Committee. THE TRUCK BILL. Mr Hislop moved the second reading of the Truck Bill to prohibit the payment of wages in goods or otherwise than in money. He thought it was unnecessary to urge the Bill on the House, because in their operations under the Public Works Acts they had carried out the principles of the Truck Bill themselves. 'Clause 20 provided for cases in which the Bill should not apply, and no doubt there were circumstances where It was not desirable to put it in force. He should be willing in Committee to move some amendments which would meet objections made to the Bill. Mr Peacock supported the BUI generally, but he was glad to hear some amendments would be made in it, specially in clause 7, which provided that no employer shall be entitled to maintain an action for goods supplied to a workman. Sir John Hall agreed with the objections made by Mr Peacock, and hoped that this Bill would be referred to a Committee as several alterations in details were necessary. Mr Reeves (St. Albans) considered the Bill a most peculiar one, inasmuch as while it professed to prevent workmen from practising the truck system, it still afforded them every opportunity for doing so. He pointed out that there were so many exemptions in clause 20 that the Bill was rendered practically useless, and those exemptions to a large extent took the vital force out of the Act. He was not prepared to say there should be no exemptions, but the Bill went too far altogether in this direction. He should not vote against the second reading, as, with the exception of clause 20, the Bill might be made very acceptable. Mr Mackenzie (Clutha) took a different view altogether, and he considered the exemptions did not go far enough for men employed in outlying districts. . Mr TaYlob agreed with the principle of putting down the truck system, but there were certain cases in which the Bill might prove a great hardship. Mr Dodson said the Bill would never work in country districts, and if they attempted to apply it to every case ie would simply be a dead letter. Mr Smith hoped the Bill would apply to the timber trade, as great abuses existed at present in the truck system in that trade. He did not think so many exemptions were required as some members seemed to imagine. P Mr Seddon would vote for the second reading, although he hoped he would not be charged with admitting the principle that a contractor should keep a boardinghouse, as he thought that was a most vicious principle. He should endeavor in Committee to make tne Bill an acceptable one. Mr Hislop replied to the various objections made to the Bill. The motion for the second reading waa agreed to, and the Bill referred to a Select Committee. BUILDING LIEN BILL. Mr Hislop moved the second reading of the Building Lien Bill, to confer a lien on certain persons for work done or materials furnished in respect of buildings and erections. After explaining the several clauses in detail, he said it would have to receive more careful consideration than any of the previous Bills, and he should refer it to a Committee if the second reading were agreed to. Mr Dowkte Stewart said he had had thisimportant matter under consideration for sixteen years. He ventured to say that if the Bill came into operation it would be an extremely useful measure, bat it was open-to several objections. The Bill would require extremely careful consideration in detail, and he congratulated Mr Hislop in bringing it in, as it was the first of the kind introduced in the Australian colonies. If the Bill was carefully worked out, it would confer a boon both on the proprietor of land, and also on the contractor.

Mr Fish was glad, after the recent sins of omission and commission of the Government, that, he could congratulate them on the introduction of this Bill, and also other Bills which were now introduced for the first time. The BiU, he felt sure, would meet a great want, and he hoped it would pass without much alteration.

Mr * Peacock pointed out several alterations which he considered were necessary in the BiU, but he thought it might fairly be referred to a Select Committee, when no doubt : it might be made a workable measure.

Mr Izard supported the BiU with certain exceptions, which he hoped to see altered in Committee. Mr Hislop bore testimony to the Industry and care which Mr Downie Stewart always exercised in discussing Bills of this kind, and the Government were grateful to him for the zeal he displayed in that direction. The motion was agreed to, and the BiU referred to a Select Committee. THE SELECT COMMITTEE. Mr Hislop moved that the Select Committee, to whom aU these Bills be referred, be as follows: — Messrs Allan, Fish, Humphreys, Isard, Peacock, Perceval, W. P. Reeves, Smith, Downie Stewart, and the mover. Agreed to. ; - "■ ■ ■■'' LKASING OP EDUCATIONAL RESERVES. Mr Richardson moved the second reading of the Ed**-atioual Reserves i^wi,^

BUI, which had already passed to Uie Council. The BUI was introduced toextend the term for which educational reserves may be leased. The motion was agreed to. "■industrial schools bill. Mr Hislop moved the second reading of the Industrial Schools BUI. explaining that it was a departmental Bill, lor tne purpose of carrying on the provisions of the Industrial Schools. Act, 1882. Mr Goldie said this Bill sought to throw a very large increase on the charges now borne by local bodies, and he hoped the second reading would be postponed. > Mr Perceval agreed with Mr Goldie s contention that the Bill would saddle local bodies with large expense, and he hoped the debate would be adjourned. Mr Humphreys took a slmUar view, and said it was only reasonable to adjourn the debate. .... Mr Taylor moved the adjournment. Mr Hislop hoped the House would not agree to adjourn tho debate, as only one clause in the Bill was objected to. The motion for the adjournment of the debate was carried by 81 to 20. THE RABBIT NUISANCE. Mr Richardson moved the second reading of the Rabbit Nuisance Act Amendment Bill, to amend the Rabbit Nuisance Act. He said the BUI did not emanate from the Government, and it was not fair to ask the House to agree to all its provisions, as he proposed to refer it to the Stock Committee. Sir G. Grey hoped the House would not pass the second reading, and he thought the unanimous opinion of the House would be against it. He protested against 1 the clause which proposed that two Jus- | tlces of the Peace should have tho power to imprison for two years a persou who sets loose rabbits or permits them to be set loose. Mr Verrall strongly opposed the BUI. Mr Kerr hoped the Bill would pass, although perhaps not iv its present form. Clause 6, which provided a penalty for injuring a rabbit-proof fence, was a most valuable one, but they might do away with the clause, providing penalties for letting live rabbits loose and for trapping live rabbits. He hoped the House would do its best to help people being ruined by rabbits.

Mr Lance hoped the House would allow the BUI to go before the Stock Committee, and he felt certain it would come from that Committee In a very different form from its present one. As to the offence of letting live rabbits loose, they all knew that people did that, aud they should be punished for it. Mr Cowan said the Bill met with his entire approval, as he had had considerable experience of the rabbit pest in Southland.

Mr Dodson said there was no doubt rabbits were carried from one district to another, and he thought a sharp penalty should be indicted. He hoped the House would pass the second reading, and allow tjjhe Bill to go to the Stock Committe . Mr McKenzie (Waihemo)said the House must recognise the fact that rabbits were increasing in the colony, and that every effort made to put them down resulted in faUure. The colony had already spent thousands of pounds on erecting wire fences for protection against rabbits, and it was only reasonable that some penalty should be indicted for injuring them. The House should also be able to deal with people who carried about live rabbits from one place to another. Mr Fergus did not agree with some of the clauses in the Bill, neither did his coUeague, the Minister tor Lands, but he hoped it would be referred to the Stock Committee and made a workable measure. Mr Buchanan also hoped the second reading wouid be passed, not that he agreed with aU the clauses of the Bill. Mr Seddon opposed the BIU, and said he could not agreed to the principle that two years' imprisonment might be imposed as a penalty under ie for letting rabbits loose.

Mr Mackenzie (Clutha) said that when the BUI came from the Stock Committee it would come back in a more workable form.

Messrs Anderson and Bruce supported the BUI. The latter, however, regretted that a Government which he supported should have brought in such a BiU, but he should vote for it, so as to send it to the Stock Committee.

Mr Ballance was not sure that the Stock Committee could amend tbe BiU, but he was in favor of letting it go to that Committee, and if it was not then satisfactory the House could reject it afterwards if it thought necessary. Mr Saunders spoke of the benefits that would be conferred on the colony by the introduction of stoats and weasels, and said they should be encouraged in every possible way, not only for destroying rabbits but also rats and mice. The motion for the second reading was carried by 81 to 9. The House rose at 1 a,m.