PARLIAMENT.

Evening Post, Volume L, Issue 48, 24 August 1895, Page 4

PARLIAMENT.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. YISTBBDAT'S AfTIBNOON EJITTINO. BIYXB BOABDS ACT AMENDMENT. This Bill, which oame from the Lower House, wu read a second time, on the motion of the Hon. J. MaoGrogor. FIKBT BIASINGS. The Timun Publio Park and Garden Domain "Reserves and Otipna Domain Keserves Vesting Bill, Tnvercargill Corporation Reserve Exchange BiK-, Dunedin Loans Consolidation Bill, Masterton Trnat Lands Trust Empowering Bill, and Servants Registry Office Bill, were reoeivert from the Lower Honse and read a first time. OTAQO DOCK ACT AMENDMENT. After the Speaker's rating on the Bon G M'Lean's amendment had been read, that hon. gentleman withdrew his amendment The Bill was then reported, read a third time, and passed. The Counoil adjourned at 2.50 p.m. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Y*st«bdat's Attcbnoon Sitting. chattels tbanbfbb. The Chattels Transfer Act Amendment Bill was read a aeoond time pro formA, and referred to the Statutes Revision Committee, on" the motion of the Minister for Labour. WAOIS ATTACHMINT ABOLITION. This Bill was committed, on the motion of the Minister for Labour. Clause 2, providing that no order attaohing wages have effect, produoed a hostile diaousiion of a oonple of sours. Members ooatended that the effect would be to injure working men by preventing their getting credit. , Mr. J. W. Kelly proposed an amendment to the effeot that no order or attachment for wages be allowed where Buoh wages were less than £1 per week without board. Mr. Houston moved to add the words " unless it be for the supply of food and olotbing." The Minister for Labour said he did not feel strongly on the matter, and would leave it to the House. Mr. Houston's amendment was lost by 30 to 19, and that of Mr. Kelly by 30 to 24. Evening Sitting. Mr. J. W. Kelly moved a new claußS providing that no debts oontraoted prior to the passing of the Act be affeoted by it. This was lost by 29 to 20. Mr. E. Thompson and others said the Pill was thoroughly bad. and it would be better to let it pass and throw the liability on the Government. The Bill was reported with verbal amendments, read a third time withont disoussion, and passed. PUBLIC TXNDBBB, CONTRACTS, AND WORKS. The Minister for Labour moved the second reading of this Bill, and strongly condemned the aotion of members in imputing all sorts of vile motives to him, and wasting the whole afternoon in opposing a Labour Bill, taotia» he expected they would continue that night. This BUI was intended to limit undue com petition in tendering, and ensure fair wages and working hours on publio contraots. A similar provision was in force with the London County Counoil. This measure was optional, providing that local bodies might do their own work on the co-operative principle. Sir Bobert Stout, while not opposing the prinoiple of the Bill, said the Minister's speeon seemed calculated to arouse opposition to it. It did not effeot what the Minister thought, and did not give effeot to the system of the London County Counoil. That Counoil was not under compulsion to adopt any particular system, as this Bill proposed, .neither did the Counoil fix the wage it was to pay, as was the case in this BUI. They should leave each local body to decide as to ita own work. Mr. O'Regan said the BUI would cause serious hardship in country districts, and interfered with those who desired to be left alone. ' Mr. H. M'Kenzie said the Minister had courted defeat by his opening speech. The Bill showed want of practical knowledge throughout, and if the Minister was going to orowd legislation of this kind on the Liberals of the colony, defeat would come sooner than .he expected. He heard complaints of the co-operative system from all over the oolony. The miirimmn wage and maximum hours olanses he approved. Mr. E. M. Smith supported the BUI, with the principle of whioh Mr. Willis agreed, though he did not consider the measure neoessary. Mr.'R. Thompson roundly condemned the BUI, whioh had been framed by a secret organisation at Christohnroh. He moved that the BUI be committed that day six months. - Mr. T. Maokenxie commented upon the slighting of the recent County Councils Conference contrasted with the consideration shown the Labour organisations, with whioh this Bill originated. The co-operative System was wastefully inefficient and extravagant, and he resented it being forced on local bodies. Mr. Meredith and Mr. M'Laohlanßtrongly condemned the BUI. - The Minister said there was a very strong feeling in the country in favonr of the Bill, notwithstanding the opposition to it in the House. The Bill contained ample provision for (securing a fair wage The BiU had not been introduced at the request of the Knights ot Labour, as asserted. Sir Bobert Stout said the Arbitration Court had power to fix the rate of wageß for 12 months, and might fix a wage that would rain the contractor, while there was no provision to fix a living wage regarding piecework, and the local body might make it as low as it pleased. Mr. Montgomery condemned the BUI, which no local body had asked for. The Minister said no local body had asked for the BUI. Mr. Dnthie Eaid the effeot of this Bort of legislation would be that produoed in America, where men were paid by the hour. Sub-oontracting was indispensable, and this BUI threw complications in its way which would harass the looal bodies and the contractors. The local bodies wanted no interference with their efforts to judioioualy expend the ratepayers' money. As there would not under the BUI be even a moral obligation to reaeive the lowest tender, all sorts of corruption would spring up. Mr. Morrison having supported tha BUI, the debate was adjourned by 31 to 19. The House rose at 12.30 p.m.