HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Evening Post, Volume LVI, Issue 5, 6 July 1898, Page 2

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

wobkmen's compensation foe accidents bill. The Premier moved the second reading of this Bill pro forma, and it was referred to the Labour Bills Committee. WAGES PROTECTION BILL. This Bill was taken in Committee. At clause 2, the interpretation clause, Captain Russell suggested that this was the proper place at which to bring the Government under the provisions of the Bill. The Premier said the Government did not deduct the wages of their employe's for accident insurance, so there was no necessity for bringing them under the Bill. It only referred to private employers. Mr. John Hutcheson thought the Bill might be made to apply to the Government as well as private employers, in order to remove a legitimate objection raised by its opponents. * Mr. Moore moved to leave out the word " local" before authority in the definition of employer, in order to bring the Government under the provisions. The Premier insisted upon the Bill passing, in its original form, in order that it might then constitutionally become law. If the Crown were included, it would repeal the clause of the Civil Service Act compelling Civil Servants to pay 6 per cent, of their salaries for the fund used for paying retiring allowances. Mr. Montgomery suggested that Mr. Moore's amendment should read " local or other authority," instead of merely eliding the word local, and on the general question objected entirely to the exclusion of the Government from the labour laws of the •colony. Mr. Tanner pointed out that so long ago as 1894 the Bill was ruined by a string of clauses brought before a tired House by the then member for Kaiapoi and passed. All the working classes asked was full payment of wages earned, and the question of co-operative workmen might be left till the Committee came to the place where they were referred to. Mr. M'Lean objected to the variant definitions of "employer" used in the differenfc" labour laws of the Government, and suggested one definition, such as that used in the year 1882, which included the Governor and Ministers of the Crown. Mr. Smith moved a prior amendment as follows :— " Employer includes the Governor or any Minister acting for or on behalf of <-. Her Majesty or Her Majesty's Government within the colony of New Zealand." The Premier — Those who vote for that amendment want to destroy the Bill. Mr. Smith — That is not correct. The Premier — I .«ay that will be the effect. Mr. Smith — That is not so. Captain Russell denied that there was any desire to kill the Bill, and urged that there was no good reason why the Crown should not be placed on the same footing as private employers. Mr. IVaser suggested that as the Premier was going to bring in an Accident Insurance Bill this session his object in refusing to bring Government employe's under the Wages Protection Bill might be that he desired to force them all to insure under his Aocident Insurance Bill. The Premier moved to report progress rather" than let the amendment including the Crown be put.

This met with a vigorous protest, and the Premier eventually withdrew the motion. Mr. Smith's amendment was lost by 32 to 30. Mr. Moore's amendment was lost on the voices. Mr. Montgomery moved a further amendment having for its effect tho inclusion under the provisions of the Bill of all workmen in Government employ. The Premier again objected, and the amendment was again lost by 32 to 30 votes, aud the clause passed. Clause 6, exempting co-operative workers on Government works from the provisions of the Bill, was struck out on the motion of the Premier, and the Bill as amended passed through Committee. MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE EEFOKM. The Premier, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said the present position of affairs in New Zealand iv respect to local government was in his opinion worse than anywhere under the British flag. The whole structure of the existing system was unsound, arid fixed on no recognisable basis whatever. There was no hope of improvement uuder the existing state of affairs. Wherever they widened the franchise there was a better class of representation, and consequently a better state of things. What was asked in the present Bill was the removal of existing restrictions. There were good grounds for this. With the old*conilitions there was overcrowding and consequent insanitary conditions. In the hands of the Borough Councils were the lives of the citizens. With overcrowding came death. Then the question was asked, " Could this be helped ? " He said, yes. Those who lived in the city and occupied the tenements were really the ratepayers, and the persons most interested in the sanitary conditions. Let them have the power o£ electing the persons to govern the affairs of the cities. On the London County Council they had a franchise almost as broad as our Parliamentary franchise. We took our municipal laws from the Mother Country, but while she had been progressing we had been at a standstill, and there was no sound argument in favour of continuing the existing unsatisfactory state of affairs. Taking Wellington, for instance, there were 44,000 persons here — th«! Parliamentary roll contained the names of 19,000 persons, while the city rating roll contained only 4000 votes, which meant not more tljan 3000 voters. Why, 138 of the persons on the Wellington rating roll had fiv e votes each. Such faults as these must show the necessity for the reform now proprsed. Why should the repi'esenlatives of these 3000 persons — the representatives of this select few — have the control of the expenditure collected from the whole of the ratepayers in the city ? By ratepayers he meant those resident here for the period prescribed. By the Bill he was now intro-d-icing he admitted the principle that per-sc-ns must be on the electoral roll for a period of 12 months beforo ' they could get on to the burgess roll. This really Mneant 15 months' residence before being entitled to vote on municipal matters. lie submitted the Bill to the House, with confidence. Mr. Crowther said that good City Councillors could not be wade by Act of Par'iament. The present Bill needed amendment, and he did not think the Premier expected it to pass in its present form. Mr. Gtlfedder expressed his approval of the Bill as being a step in the right direction. Mr. Fisher said the existing system had brought about a state of stagnation in the City of Wellington. At the present time on the City Council there were twelve men who if put to the whole population would not be elected on a parish vestry. These twelve incompetents were elected year after year. He was glad to see the change now proposed. Instead of the almost mock elections now held, when the people had the suffrage they would take an interest in the elections, which would then bo representative. Besides this, who really paid the rates ? The poor paid the rates for the rich. Why should not the poor — «the householders — have a voice in the local government ? (A member — "It is not limited to householders.") Mr. Fisher referred at some length to his owu experiences as Mayor and City Councillor. He urged that the new rolls as proposed should be ready for the next Mayoral Election, and promised this and other Committee amendments. For sanitary and financial .reasons the Bill was a great improvement on the existing law. Mr. M'Gowan said the Bill was one that would be supported by all who professed Liberal principles — it was real progressive legislation, and a great improvement on any similar legislation previously introduced in the House. Mr. O'Regan complimented the Government upon introducing the measure, which he warmly supported, although it did not go as far as he would desire. Mr. R. Thompson admitted that reform was needed, but thought the present Bill went too far. If it had been limited to householders — the rentpayers — it would have gone far enough. As it was, it proposed that the burgess roll should be formed from the Parliamentary electoral roll. He hoped to see the Bill amended in Committee. Mr. J. Hutcheson said a good deal of the disaster predicted from tlie passing of this Bill was in connection with the broadening of the Parliamentary franchise. This widening of the franchise was simply the outcome of the democratic spirit of the age. The present Bill, in fact, did not go far enough. No person could live in a city without contributing to the rates. There was ample evidence in the cities of the colony of the necessity for broadening the franchise. Every person who had reached his majority should have the right to vote on all matters affecting the welfare of the city in which he lived, and not be limited, as proposed by the Bill, to voting only for the election of Mayor or Councillors. Mr. Hogg supported the Bill. Mr. Holland thought it went too far. It should be limited to householders. At 12.30 p.m. the debate was adjourned, and the House rose.