PARLIAMENT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 879, 27 July 1910, Page 5

PARLIAMENT.

EDUCATION MATTERS DISCUSSED. STONE QUARRIES BILL. AMENDMENT CARRIED AGAINST THE MINISTER. In the House yestoiday afternoon,-Mr. Sidey's Education Amendment Bill, which makes provision for compulsory continuation classes, and the Hon. A. R. Guinness's Greymouth HarTfour Board Loans Consolidation Bill were read a first time. The Phosphorus Matches Bill (Hon. D. Buddo) passed through Committee without' alteration. When the Stone Quarries Bill (Hon. E. M'Kcnzie) was considered in Committee, an amendment, moved by Mr. Eeed (Bay of Islands), for the exemption of quarries used exclusively by local bodies was carried against the Minister by' 27 votes to 1 2G. When the Financial Debate opened in the evening, Mr. Massey, Leader of the Opposition, moved an amendment on the land question, which was taken as a motion of no confidence in the Government. The motion (as will be eeen from the report which appears in another, column) was supported by a vigorous speech,. which was replied to by thePrime Minister. Mr. James Allen (Bruce) was tho next speaker, and criticised recent legislation of the Government, the retrenchment scheme, and its lack of policy on the land question, effectively. The Hon. G. Fowlds replied, and tho House rose at 0.30 a.m. EDUCATION SYSTEM. TECHNICAL AND PRIMAKY VOTES. When the House resumed yesterday afternoon,. Mr. SIDET (Dunedin South) moved to introduce : his Education Amendment Bill, which deals with continuation classes;

Mr. T. ■E. TAYLOR (Christchurcli North) congratulated Mr. Sidey on bringing forward, this Bill, in view of ,a newpolicy indicated by the Minister for Education in a statement made to the authorities of the Christclnircli Technical College. He felt sure that the Minister would have to withdraw from his new position of throwing half the cost of buildings for ; technical education on to the local ratepayers: It would be just as reasonable, and in fact less harmful, to adopt that policy in respect .of primary education. ' He thought that the Minister's proposal. was a most retrograde one. He felt sure that a majority of the people would be in favour of making the whole system of' primary edneation more practical. The Hon. G. POWLDS, Minister for Education, said he was anxious to secure the best results from technical education, and if any decision of his did harm it would not hurt to discuss the question. He objected, however, to the gratuitous insult to himself conveyed in the statement that the Department was run by the Inspector-General. On this particular point he hud acted against the advice of the Inspector-General. He asked who was to settle what expenditure on technical education in the cities was necessary? The statement made to the Christchurch Technical College, which Mr. Taylor represented as the declaration of a new policy, merely meant that the time . had arrived when any further expends . turo on technical school buildings in Christchurcli should proceed on a £ for £ basis. Over had been spent by the Government for buildings or equipments of the Christchurch Technical College, which was more than any other city had received. Ho thought that .there should bo some further connection _ be- _ tween expenditure and the responsibility ' for raising .the money. Mr. Taylor: Whom should it be on? Mr. Fowlds said he did not care whom it was on. He preferred, that , there should be further local control,-' and that-, was tho direction in which any proposals of his would go. It was a movement not towards centralisation, but towards de. centralisation. Technical education- was of little use unless it was provided on a basis of'sound primary education. STONE QUARRIES BILL. LOCAL BODIES EXEMPTED. Whilst the House was. in , Committee on tho Stone Quarries Bill, Mr. REED (Bay of Islands), on Sub-section 1, of Clause 2 K which detines tho application of the Act, moved an . amendment as under:—"Provided, however, that this Act shall not apply to tho working of quarries used exclu- ' sively by local bodies for the obtaining v of stone in use on public Toads.". Mr. HERDMAN (Wellington North) thought that all quarries owned by locaT bodies should he excepted. This Bill was" going to add to the army of inspectors.; which exists in this country. He had been informed that there was no necessity for the Bill. ; ' ■ Hon. E,- M'Kenzie: Ask the workers.' Mr. G. M. THOMSON (Dunedin North) held that, the Act would prove ex-', tremelv burdensome. Mr. POLAND (Ohinemuri) stated that • local bodies, in his district, hud protested against the measure. ' ■ . The Hon. R. M'KENZIE stated that , he' was advised that local bodies were already exempt, but even, if they were not, why should local bodies not be sub- , ject to proper regulations? Mr. Poland: Why should not the Pub-

lie Works-'Department? Mr. M'lCe'nzie: We take every precaution.

Mr. PHASER (Wakatipu) pointed out that the Bill could not eliminate the risk of accident. ■ ■ -.' Mr. WRIGHT (Wellington South) hold that there should he no exemptions under the Bill. The Hon. R. M'KENZIE stated that as long as local-bodies* were doing their own work they lyere exempt. A 1 nuinbej of workers had been killed in the vicinity of Wellington as the result. of inuompetenco: Bid members imagine that there had been so many accidents in mines and by machinery since inspectors had been appointed? No new inspectors would need to.be appointed under the Bill and no increases of salary to existing inspectors would bo necessary. ■ ' Air. T. E. TAYLOR (Christchurch North) thought that the" Government should not be allowed to legislate itself out of liability. The same protection should-, be afforded to- Government and local bodies' - employees as well as to workers under private employers. - Mr. FISHER (Wellington Central) held that human life was just as valuable in one quarry as in another quarry. Mr. ALLEN (Bruce) did not see why local bodies should be relieved of a restriction which was placed on private employers. ■ ' ■ The Minister promised to limit the exceptions to a mine within the Mining Act or a coal, mine within the Coal Mines Act. if the amendment were rejected.

Upon a division, however, Mr. Reed's amendment ,was carried by 27 votes to 20. ■ '■

■■Mr. "BOLLARD (Eden) at this stage moved to report progress oil the ground that the Minister hhd not realised the effects of such a Bill, but the proposition was negatived bv 32 votes to 25. Mr. .'.-.ALLEN (Bruce) thought that Clause 3 as it stood would compel persons who had only the charge of explosives to secure permits. The Hon. It. M'KENZIE moved that the 'need for permits be * limited :to a manager or foreman or any person who has charge of blasting operations instead of ••"who have charge of any explosives." , Mr. :.OK"r"JY (Taranaki) held that the proposed •■provisions with reference to permits • were too burdensome. At this'stage the Rouse adjourned. THE COUNCIL. Thero was no meeting of the Legislative Council yesterday. On Friday last the Cdnncit "adjourned till next Wednesday. •__ . .