PARLIAMENT.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XLIV, Issue 14820, 20 October 1920, Page 7

PARLIAMENT.

Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, October 19. HOUSE OF KEPKESENTATIVES. The House met at~2.30 p.m. The Land Law Amendment was reported from the Lauds Committee with amendments. , Mr Witty, speaking to the report-, said that the Government would have effected a great saving in paper if they had brought down a Bill of one clause giving everybody the freehold who dev sircd it. At one time Crown tenants were a perfectly satisfied body of people. but tile Prime Minister and his followers came along and in order to get into power they promised the freehold to Crown leaseholders at the original price. The Government was evidently determined to destroy every leasehold in tlic Dominion. That was what the Hill meant if it meant anything. Not only had the Government given away the people's patrimony, but they had given their freeholders greater concessions than they had given any section of the community. They had given wheat-grower., concessions. They complained when other people refused to work, but when the wheat-growers refused to grow wheat they gave them a subsidy at the expense of the public. As a matter of fact the country had lost millions over the Government's wheat deals, all to placate the people who were put on their feet by the Liberal Party, but who. as soon as they Were promised the freehold. turned right round and supported those .vho previously had been their opponents. He criticised the proj>csal to sell tile national endowments and invest the nion-jy in projects which might not be of the least benefit to the Dominion. It would have been much more manly if the Government had come down with a straight-out proposal to sell the national endowments al. once than to whittle them away year by year as was now being done. These endowments were set aside to aid education, pensions. and the aged and needy, but now they were to be parted with for a sonjr. Mr AVitty went on to criticise the butter subsidy, contending that the price of butter affected the price of land. If there had been no subsidy the price of land would have fallen, and tlie orgie of speculation now going on would have ceased. He had no objection to the clauses in the Hill benefiting thr. soldiers. What lie did object to was the sale of endowments which the Prime Minister led them to believe a few days ago were not to be sold. It was :> sad day for the country when we i:avt- away what belongs to the people. Parliament, was the guardian of the people's rights, but instead of guarding the people's heritage tlley welo now robbing them of it. Mr G. W. Forbes :-aid that the offer ot the freehold to Crown tenants was one of the greatest political bribes ever put before a people. On that the Government came into power, and when ill power they had dealt out big things in that way to their friends. Now they were cleaning up the crumb?. It was no use complaining, because the Government a freehold Government and could do :i> it liked, but they did complain at this method of dealing with the holders of small grazing runs. who. under the Act of IS'J2. had the right to perpetual renewal of their lease.--; at an increpsisl rental of 2' per cent. That might, have been confirmed by the Priv;. Council, but the Government had passed legislation in I!MS getting behin 1 the terms of these leaseholds. That was a bresirh nf faith. A eontmet bad been made and the Government (should stand by its bargain. The Prime Minister said that there' had liecu an error In drafting the .Ad of 1>!I2.

Mr Forlx-s. eontinuinjr. said that • he peopl«- who took up these lands iad thi- risrht to sup|>o-e that the words of the Aft meant, what, they said. but atte'r the people- took up the land tli. v niTi" told that tlit- bargain made with them was not to In- re.-pected. This, he thought. wa> tuo.-t unfair. The Minister of Lands (Hon. IK H. Outhne) said that, when tin- liases I' ll dlli- the Depart m< lit was of the opinion that the renewals were to he dealt villi in the it-ual wa\. The renewals ncrr i;raiit>rl ; it four per eetit.. unlil one particular fes-t--. whn w;k a law\ -r. contended that he had tin riirht of lenewal at "2\ [ier cent. The Court had upheld thai le.-s,v. and the Government had given him e-verythinir he had wen. Th<" original lease at 2'. per e:it. rental had 1-eep wholly for the pwr-po-e of tin- people to take U|> diflieitiriands. hut it had never h- en intended to stand fr.-r all time. he public -rood was paramount. Of eouiv" eom|«-nsatton should br paiil wlicr- it was due. He would accept any ~:i;r- - making certain that leaseterests in any land. Dealing with 'ho I5;ll generally, tin- Minister said he 1.a.1 no (piarrel with the leaseholder- for standinjr up for their ritfht-. hu( 'he predominant de-ir.- for freehold must he aee-opted. "This is not a i|Uestion cf lea.-fhiM >tr Ire. helfl. it is a <|U(>=t:on of nation.il honor." said Mr 1,. M. Isitt. "f HIV ch-liherately that there is only one word with which to describe this transact ion. and that is 'repudiation.' If the Government was jioinjr hack <:n their leases, why should it net liar up the leaM-s-in-prrpel ir_ty. It was t:ne tiling to amend legislation in regard to them and another to pass retrospective legislation. taking away the rights of Ihe people who had been upheld by the Courts." The Minister: f have alway.-: been of opinion that the 2' tier cnit. anplied to the first term and that after that- it was to be I per cent. Mr Isitt replied that it was not a ijiiestion of intention. What mattered was what the Act- of l>-!)2 said. Mr A. I). McLeod maiiitained that the Government was takiiec up a mistaken attitude. He said that- the- etuitract should be observed. The Hon. A. T. X'*ata pointed out that the Act had jrone throuirh in n hurry. It had been introduced on a Saturday and nut through all stages on the following Monday. The members interested —Sir James Carroll, the lite Hon. W. H. S. M aeDonald. anil himself had all been unavoidabfv absent. He had a suspicion that the 10 IS clause was the result of the Crown Law Office not taking its beating like sportsmen. The report wa's tabled without further discussion.

Tin- rriimiiidrr of tlio :ilti'riuioii siftimr ums trikeu up with a cm C'hnstrhiirch petition a.-kin-; for :i roflin tion in the cost of living, mi opportunity nrisiiiy of r- siimini; the <|Ui'stion of thf luitter Milisifiy.

On the limine resuming ;it ~.:10. tlie llr.-t order was the motion to go into Committee on tin- Workers' Compensation Amendment Bill (No. 2). which had previously been read ;i second time pro forma. Speaking to tlie motion to 1:0 into Committee. Sir William Hrrries pointerl out that lie had embodied in tile Hill ntauv of the proposals of Mr Howard's Bill, which ho took to represent the views of the Official Labor I'artv. The Hill was the first instalment of the programme of legislation intended to catch up ihe ground lost in roiiiiection with th<* labor laws in the war tieriod. The present. Hill was agreed to by the I.almr Party, the emplover.-. and bv the insurance coniI'.iiiie-. v > that he thought lie was justified in asking the House to pass it without, amendment. The onlv point of difference had Ik-cii in resinrd t" common employment, and upon that ho had consul:.d the principal legal authorities. Their opinion was that the doctrine of common employment, was abolished. and that there was substituted the limitation of L'Tort damages in the ea«e of disablement. In regard to death there was no limitation. Mr Sullivan: Have you f»nsidered my suggestion to abolish the limits in the c::so of total disablement ? The Minister said that the schcdnl" of the Act. cla-s-ed as 100 ]>or H-nt. disablements-, iniuries which were i.ot ordinarily considered, such as the 1 nt both eyes, for instanre. He ask--d niembcn= "not to Ik? carried away hy sentiment. They should consider their own position as employer* of labor. Members: That is not appealing to sentiment, hut to selfishness. Continuing, the Minister Faid the pr.-ition of the employer must he -onsiderrd. and that would not be done if tlie limit of damages for disablement was .swept awav altogether. Mr T. M. "Wilford thought the Bill generally was a good Bill, but if a. man was iniured and entitled to compensation. why should he be left three days before he was entitled to any com peneat ion at all. He also urged that the

largest compensation should be given to workers while sick. If a. worker required £4 a week to keep him while well, it was perfectly certain that £2 4s would not keep liim and his familywhile sick.

Mr E. J. Howard maintained that the doctrine of "common employment" had not been abolished; by the Bill, lie pointed out that many ships trading on our coasts and on' which our New Zealand men were employed by being tegistered in England were defeating our compensation law, because injured in ?n could not proceed tuider tin's Act. He could not understand the Minister bolstering up such a principle. In other respects the Bill was a slight advance on the previous legislation, and for his part he was thankful for small mercies - , as it was the only bit of legislation passed this session which was likely to help the. worker in any way. Mr 'Downie Stewart said he had been impressed by the lippeal of the last speaker to abolish the doctrine of "common employment," and consequently he had looked carefully into the whole question, and found that the doctrine w;ft abolished in this country. Instead, however, a limit had been placed on employers' liabilities in the case of accident." What Mr Howard was really asking for was the abolition of that limitation, not the abolition of "common employment." Mr H. Poland -said the suspicious thing about the. Bill was that the Minister said the employers and the insurance companies had agreed that the Bill should pass. He would much prefer to see the employers and the' insurance companies dissatisfied, as there might then be something in it for the workers. He complained that the amount proposed as medical aid to an injured worker was wholly inadequate, as was also the allowance of 55 per cent, of his wages granted him while absent from work.

Mr W. A. Veitcli said all the) Bill did was to. recover to workers some cf the ground they lost as a result of -war conditions.

Mr D. G. Sullivan maintained that however much the Bill might be an advance on the present legislation the time had clearly arrived .when there should be a complete overhaul of the compensation law. He did not believe "common employment" was abolished, and he could not see why there should be any objection to the removal of the limitation on an employer's liability, for not 3 per cent, of the cases would br affected by it. Accident, insurance should be nationalised, and money now wasted in the administration expenses of private l offices might be divided among injured workers by way <. f highrr premiums. . After midnight, the debate was .ontinued by the Hons. C. .T. Parr and J. G. Orates and Mr Horn.

Sir William He.rries, in reply._said he hoped next session to consolidate labor legislation and bring it up io date.

Thei House then went into Committee on the Bill. At clause 4 Mr Parry moved an amendment designed to give a worker earning £3 per week the same ratio of increase as was given to a worker earning £5 a week. The Minister said it was ln's desire that this should be done, and if the Bill did give effect to this, then he would have tlio matter looked into and if necessary it could be amended ill another place. Oil this understanding Mr Parry withdrew his amendment. At clause 4. subsection b. Mr Poland moved an amendment- to increase the amount of compensation from 55 per cent, to 06 2-3 per cent.

On a division the amendment was lost bv 30 to 25.

Mr P. Eraser moved an amendment to increase in clause 5. subsection b. of. the principal Act. tho amount of compensation to be paid from £1 to £2. This was lost- on the voices.

Mr Parry sought to extend the scope of clause 5 by including in its provisions tunncllers. quartzmen. and excavation workers.

The Minister refused to accept the amendment, which was lost on a divi•ion by 37 to 23.

Mr Howard endeavored to amend section 13 of the Workers' Compensation Act. 1911. but striking out. (he: limitation placed on the amount of compensation to be paid in the case of disablement.

The amendment was lost by l 2 to If*. Tho Bill was reported with amendments made bv tho Labor Bills Committee.- read a third time, and passed. The House rose at 1.42 a.m.