PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15730, 3 October 1914, Page 9

PARLIAMENT.

FIRE BRIGADES BILL. POLICY OF STATE OFFICE. [by telegraph.— association.] Wellington, Friday. The House met at 2.30 p.m. On behalf of the Shipping Freights and Charges Committee, Sir Walter Buchanan asked for an extension of ten days in which to report to the House. The request was granted.

Most of the afternoon was spent in a discussion (reported elsewhere) of the programme of work for the session. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m. It was agreed to notify the Legislative Council that the House objected to Subsection 11, Clause 6, of the Licensing Amendment Bill, on the ground that it would mean that wine could be sold without any limit to the alcoholic standard. The National Provident Fund Amendment and Education Reserves Amendment Bills were introduced by Governor's Message, and read a first time.

A Bill further amending the New Zealand Universities Act was introduced by Governor's Message, and read a first time. On the question that the amendments made in the Fire Brigades' Amendment Bill be agreed to, Mr. Sidey urged that in all cases inquests should be held regarding the causes of fires.

Mr. Payne supported this contention, -Lhe great losses by fire in New Zealand were largely due to building in wood. Inquests would reduce fire risks, and thereby reduce premiums. The amendments were agreed to. , R On the question of the third reading, -Mr. bidey contended that the House was ■ entitled to an expression of opinion from the Government as to the policy they proposed to follow to prevent the present enormous waste by fire in the Dominion. Mr. Russell said he hoped the Government would take action to see that the State Fire Insurance Department was dissociated from other insurance offices in New Zealand. If the State Fire Office took that step it would have the whole credit and strength of New Zealand at its back. By keeping in line with other companies, the State Office was not fulfilling the purpose for which it was created.

The Hon. F. M. B. Fisher said he recognised the importance of the matter, and he had had it under consideration, bince he had been Minister in charge of the Department he had declined any negotiations with private companies. He declared that the profits of the Department were being profitably employed. He said there were full powers in the Act at the present time to hold inquiries, but the power given was optional. The cost of compulsory inquests would be £1000 per annum. The matter was in the Department of his colleague, the Minister for Internal Mans, but he would bring the representation under his notice. The Bill was read a third time and passed.

National Provident Fund. ♦i Th v Hon. F. M " B. Fisher moved that the Rational Provident Fund Amendment UiU be recommitted for the purpose of reconsidering clause 9. He "stated that •when the Bill was in Committee a differen.c.e of , opinion had arisen between himself and Labour members as to the effect ot this clause. Since then he had instructed the head of the Department to consult Mr. F. T. Martin regarding the drafting of an amendment, which ho now introduced by Governor's Message. The problem was the case of a worKer employed by a local body, and after paying into the fund leaves, or is discharged from this service. The Labour members contended that in such a case the man should bo entitled to a refund of the amount paid into the fund for him by the local body. The position was full of difficulty, and he now proposed to substitute another clause.

Mr. AlcCombs said the Bill was crude and ill-considered. He felt that the Minister had broken faith with him by failing to make the amendments asked for. The Bill could only bo characterised as an attempt to forge fresh fetters for the workers.

Mr. Hindmarsh urged that the man who left the employment of a local body where superannuation was in operation should have the right to continue his contributions to the fund, although not employed by a local body. Mr. Veitc.h said that while the measure was not all he wanted, he was prepared to support it, but he suggested that the Bill be withdrawn and the whole position reconsidered.

Mr. Payne said in the Bill there was a distinct attempt to shackle the people. The House then went into Committee on the Bill, And upon the question of inserting the Minister's amendment a division was called for, the amendment being inserted by 25 votes to 11.

The Bill passed, and the House rose at 12.55 a.m.