A SPEECH OF OMISSIONS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 13479, 2 July 1907, Page 6

A SPEECH OF OMISSIONS.

THE VIEWS OF A SOUTHERN

MEMBER.

[BY TELEGRAPH.-— OWN CORUESrONTDENT.]

: Dcnedix, Monday, j Ix the course of an interview with reference to tho coming session of Parliament, Mr. W. Fraser, member fori Wakatipu, informed a Times reporter that what- he noticed particularly in connection with the Governor's Speech were- the omissions For instance, there was no reference to any proposal to deal with the subject which for many a, long year past had been discussed, namely a proper system of local government. That was a matter that would take almost a session by itself. Mayhap the Government consider-: ed it had no time to deal with it in the I coming session, but he certainly thought j something should have been stated in regard to it. Referring to the land question, Mr.! Fraser said that the proposal to deal with j the land question in the form of three i Bills would virtually mean that there would be three sets of speeches on the same subject, instead of one. The subject matter of the three Bills would be found so inextricably mixed that" it would be impossible to refer to one without also treating of the others. This might prove to be contrary to the Standing Orders of the House, as a member speaking to ono item on the Order Paper was burred from speaking on others. Some curious complications would in all probability arise. An important matter that would come before the present Parliament would be a revision, in certain directions, of the labour laws. The Arbitration Act would require attention. The unfortunate affair, the slaughtermen's strike, was a case in point. A system of fining men for breaches of the Act, and of imprisoning those who did not pay their fines, could not be said to be satisfactory. It seemed to himhe had not gone fully into the matter, but speaking generally—that it would be advisable, before a union was recognised as such under the Arbitration Act, to make it imperative that it should give evidence of ability to meet fines, and, in the second place, that any, unionist who might decline to be bound by the mandate of his union not to strike, but did so on his own initiative, should be compelled to retire from the union. Ho. thought the men should be liable to be fined as at present; but he disagreed with the alternative of imprisonment-. A much better alternative to non-payment of a fine, would be to make the men ineligible to be taken back into the union until the fine was paid. They would thus lose all benefits of preference of employment under th: Act. In the event of the union taking back men who had been fined for a breach of the Act before they had paid the fine, the union would, under such circumstances, become liable. ~...''.. Of course, these were only rough suggestions. The matter would require to be carefully worked out in detail; but they at least indicated the manner in which the fines could be enforced without resorting to imprisonment.