Tractor Safety Measure Attacked

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30858, 17 September 1965, Page 3

Tractor Safety Measure Attacked

From Our Parliamentary Reporter

WELLINGTON, Sept. 16.

Disappointment and dissatisfaction with the provisions of the Machinery Amendment Bill were expressed by Opposition members when the bill came before Parliament todav for its second reading.

The bill provides for the testing of safety frames for tractors, lays down that any frame fitted to a tractor should be an approved one—but does not make it mandatorv to fit such frames.

The Minister of Labour (Mr Shand) said that not enough was known about tractor accidents in New Zealand to lay down specific rules, although these would follow as experience mounted.

Mr M. A. Connelly (Opp., Riccarton) who sponsored a union petition on the subject tn 1963, and presented his own private member’s bill on tractor safety last year, said there was ample evidence to warrant the Government taking firm action, as it had done on other aspects of public safetv.

Sir Basil Arthur (Opp.. Timaru) described it as “an apology for a bill . . . tottering steps to tractor safety.” The Minister of Labour (Mr Shand) said that inevitably it would be said that the bill did not go far enough, and that there should be some compulsion for the fitting of Safety frames.

Little Known . “We do not know nearly enough about tractor accidents,” he said. “I hope to be able to announce within a week or so that we have been able to get accident reports up to date. I believe that before long we shall be laying down specific rules to be followed—but it is too early yet for us to be laying down the law. ■ “What we are doing is saying This is a good safety frame. We advise you to use it. If you do not, you will be taking a risk’,” Mr Shand said that the bill concentrated on safety frames rather than on “automatic pieces of apparatus which, I think, have doubtful value.” He said that it was likely that within a few years a testing station would be established in the North Island — “at Massey College or somewhere" to do the whole testing programme. The' bill provided for a report on a safety frame to be sent to the manufacturer and to the secretary of labour. “■Small Step” Mr Connelly said that to the Opposition this was a step, though a very small one. towards tractor safety. “We feel it shows undue complacency,” he said. “This bill does not take a very determined attitude.” The New Zealand Workers’ Union, Mr Connelly said, would regard the bill as a reply t< their petition of last year, which was an appeal to the Government to reduce loss of life in tractor accidents and to promote research into safety measures. If so, it was a poor answer.

In New Zealand there was an average of 36 deaths a year for a country with 100.000 tractors. Education had been attempted to prevent these deaths, but the persiste ice of this annual figure indicated that education had failed. I “In the fullness of time. 4his bill will have some Effect —but it will not eliminate fatalities,” Mr Connelly said.

Since 1948. Mr Connelly lid. there had been 388

fatal tractor accidents. Since! June, 1963, when the petition had been presented, there had been 76 tractor fatalities, including 16 to children. Last year the number of fatalities was 34. i Studv Made

A Canterbury expert, examining details of fatal tractor accidents, had said that his study over the last year had revealed nothing new. They were all repeats of old fatalities, and wellknown rules of tractor handling were continually being flouted. After a study of 22 accidents in which 23 persons !had been killed, this expert I had found that 17 fatalities ! would Lave been avoided and I six probably avoided had I frames been used. I ‘The Minister is recorded as saying that the record of fatalities on tractors is a shocking one.” Mr Connelly said. “In this bill the Government could have given a lead by announcing that it intended to fit all the tractors under its control with approved safety frames.”

Two Bodies It was noted, he said, that the Standards Council was also looking into the introduction of a standard on safety frames. This meant that two bodies were investigating the same problem. It could well be that the Standards Council could adopt a standard different from the one adopted by the agricultural institute at Lincoln—that is, unless Lincoln were represented on the standards inquiring body. The private bill introduced last year. Mr Connelly said, made it illegal for a child to ride on a “bare” tractor. The present bill did not do so. Four children were killed on tractors last year. Mr H. E. L. Pickering (Govt., Rangiora) said that even Mr Connelly would agree that the step was the right one. Section 5 of the bill laid down that only an approved frame could be fitted. This would prevent people from being lulled into a false feeling of security, and attempting tasks for which the unapproved frame was unsuitable. Sir Basil Arthur described the bill as uninspiring. He could understand why the member for Rangiora had been so apologetic about it. “As far as it goes, it won’t be criticised,” he said. “It merely provides that all safety frames used should be of approved design—but does not enforce their use.” When Mr Connelly introduced his Tractor Safety Bill last year, Sir Basil Arthur said, Government members accused him of “climbing on the Government band waggon.”

They had claimed that the Government’s measure would do all and more than Mr Connelly's private bill promised. “Waited Year” “Well, we have waited more than 12 months, and what appears?” asked Sir Basil Arthur. “The apology for a bill. It does not go anywhere near far enough. | Firm measures for tractor

safety were required—not these tottering steps This is just another case of National promise and lack of performance.” Own Accident Sir Eruera Tirikatene (Opp.. Southern Maori) said that, as a result of his tractor acci[dent last year: “1 am like a | returned soldier. 1 have been j given another life. 1 am prespared to support any measure ion tractor safetv.”

He said he had safety frames fitted to his own tractors. He thought that a frame strong enough to hold some of the tractors being made today would cost about £l5O. Mr W. E. Rowling (Opp., Buller) said safety frames for tractors must be made compulsory.

In Sweden they had been compulsory since 1959 and in the last three years there had only been one death, he said. Even taking into account the simpler type of farming in Sweden it obviously showed the value of the frames, he said. Mr J. B. Gordon (Govt., Clutha) claimed it would be impossible for a safety frame to be devised to suit all types of tractors.

The debate was interrupted by the 10 p.m. adjournment debate.