GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10595, 12 September 1896, Page 6

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 11. The Council met at 2.30 p.m. SIR W. BOIXERS PETITION. The report of the Public Petitions Committee upon the petition of Sir Walter Bailer was laid on the table, and was to the following effect: — "Petitioner complained that the findings in the report of the Royal Commission at Hdrowhenua were not justified or supported by the evidence given before the commission, and that the commission did'not act properly in carrying out its duties. It appears to the committee that as the evidence on which the report purported to be founded accompanied the report, any person reading the evidence would be able to judge how far the findings of

the commission were justified. The petitioner , asserted, however, that from the statements reported to him as being made by the chairman of the commission whilst the commissioners vrere not sitting, and also from a memorandum in writing sent to him by the chairman at some Stage of the inquiry, petitioner was induced not to bring forward further evidence which he would have produced. Petitioner admits that the evidence as printed correctly represents the evidence produced before/the commission. In the opinion of the committee the petitioner was not justified in relying on or availing himeelf of any extra-judicial statements made or stated to have been made by any member of tba commission. The memorandum referred to, even if the petitioner is justified in nsing it, yonr committee do not attach any importance to, and it does not appear that the additional evidence which the petitioner states he would have brought forward would have altered or materially affected -the terms of the report. The committee is of opinion that it could not fairly er

Batisfactorily deal with the question raised by

the petition without having before it all this witnesses who gave evidence before the commission and reinvestigating a)! the numerous and . complicated questions into which the Royal Commission was appointed to inquire. Xhe committee is also of opinion that any such investigation and inquiry'cannot be made by it at this stage of the session. A commission met on March 10 and the report is dated May 25, thro shotting the time "over which the inquiry extended. . The evidence and report occu-

pying fnlly 240 pages of printed matter.

{Should it be determined to reinvestigate the various questions considered in the report of the commission a joint committee of both Houses should be appointed for the purpose. The committee, however, does not express any opinion as to the expediency of each a step. The committee has informed the petitioner of the difficulties in the way of considering and finally reporting this session, and he has expressed a strong desire to be heard at the bar of the Council before any legislation giving effect to the raport is passed." '■ ,' .'•.■', BLLL PASSED. The Defamation Bill was read a third time and passed. I . ■-.-., • • SECOND BEADING. The second reading of the Abattoirs and '. Slaughterhouses Act Amendment Bill, Poverty ■ Bay Lands and Deeds Registration Districts BiU,! Ngatitoa Trust Bill, Grey town Trustees Empowering Bill,' and Trades Union Act Amendment Bill were agreed to without important debate. ■'' '. . . .' - : WAGES PROTECTION. •'■'■,''■ .. The Hon.W. C. WALKEBmoved the second reading of the Wages Protection Bill, contenting himself with explaining its previsions. The Hon. Mr STEVENS pointed out the important change proposed in reference to gumdiggers. While it professed to be merely" an extension of the Truck Act, the bill also prevented an employer taking ont an accident insurance policy for any of his employees. The Hon. W. D- STEWART said that the bill, if passed, by interfering with insurances effected by employers for employees, would end in a reduction of wages. The measure would abb materially increase litigation. The Hon. J. MACGEEGOB considered that the prevention of insurance effected by an employer for employees was' entirely undesirable.—Be had come across a number of cases of this sort professionally, and in each instance. ■' he had found ; that the employees had received material advantage from tbe insurance. The provisions allowing workmen to recover deductions from their wages to which they had agreed were, he held, unnecessary and mischievous. ' The Hon. Mr JENNINGS spoke in favour of the bill, and held that there was no necessity for insurances between employer and employed, as workmen were able to insure themselves.: .--;. .'. The Hon. Mr BO WEN" objected to the bill as bad in principle, but hoped that the Labour Bills Committee would effect improvements in the measure. The Hon.- Mr BIGG said the bill was designed to prevent evasions of the law which were - now taking plaee."*t~'¥.ts-*unly right that a workman should receive the whole of the wages he - had earned. v. The Hob. Mr JONES said that the Council should only recognise the principle that an employer should not deduct wages from his workmen. This sort of legislation was nob controlled by one class, but by the whole people. »i New Zealand.' He would support the bill.

The «eeond reading was carried by 19 to It, and the bill referred to the Labour Bills Committee, i • v. ■■; :•■■■■ i PJRIVAXE BENEFIT SOCIETIES. : ' Theadjourned debate upon the motion for the second reading of the Private Benefit Societies Bill, and the hostile amendment which was moved to adjourn the debate for a {aether period in order that: a committee might be set up to obtain information from the Colonial Sugar Refining Company and Union Company's Benefit Societies was resumed. ..The Hon. DrGRACE agreed to withdraw his hostile amendment, but intimated that as he objected to the principle of the measure he Would Vote against the second reading. . '.The motion for the adjournment was lost, on {Eeir<Bce«.. ' ' J -The Hon. Mr RIGG said'that the bill was not designed to strike at any one particular Society, but would regulate all private benefit societies. - ' - ' ; •'..- ■ ■ The Hon. G. JONES thought it possible that the men of the Union Company approved of that company's benefit society through fear. He read a statement to prove that 99 out of Every 100 members were in.favour of abolishing the Bank of Now Zealand provident fund. There were a number of private benefit societies which should be abolished.. The. Hon. E. JENKINSON upheld: the principle that when an employer paid his employees their wages' he should have no further transactions with them. Dr Grace's amendment to kill the bill waa carried by 18 to 11, and'the second reading rejected. ~.., ~' .._ ' ■ _■[■ ..- ... t ■ The division list was as follows:— Ayes (for the -bill), .11. —Messrs Arkwrie'ht, Feldwick, Jenkinson, Jennings, Jones, Kelly, Montgolnery, Iteeves. Rigg; Taiaroa, W.: 0. Walk«r. ■ ...... Noes (against the bill), IS.—Messrs AcUnd, BaiUie, Batnicoat, Bowtm, Grace, Holmes, MacGregor, M'Lean, Morris, Osmond, Peacock, Reynolds, Richardson, Scotland, Stevens, Swanron, L. Walker. Williams. . COFYKIGRT OS PHOTOGEAFHS. In Cqmmifctee on the Photographic Copyright Bill, a new clauso was added providing a penalty not exceeding £5 for each offence under the bill. ■ The measure was then reported. At 4.25 p.m. the Council rose.

HOUSE OF •REPBESENTATIVES.

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, The House met a.t 2.30 p.m. THE PHK3S ASSOCIATION. Mr G. W. BUSSELL moved that the Copyright Telegrams Committee have an extension of time for a fortnight id order to bring up their report.—Agreed to. ' HASTEE AND APFfiBNTICE. The Hon. J. H'KENZIE moved formally that the Master and Apprentice Bill be committed. , ' ■ Mr DUTHIB was surprised that the Minister bad offered no explanation of this bill, which vras of a very important, character. ■ He questioned whether a bill of-this kind was at all necessary, or whether it was for the good of the community generally. It would be almost impossible tinder this bill to get boys taught the trade of their father, and it would only be the soot of w.ell-to-do-jieoplethafc conld take s.dvan-tage-bfit. He criticised the details of-the bill aVsome length, anil said it would require very careful consideration from the House as it wgs frdasgerons measure. Sir. B. STOOT said the Gfovernment shouW nave explained the reason for bringing in a bin of this kind, which wauld have the effect 'ot rtnrttmg up half the induitries of the colony. The bill provided that there should be only one apprentice''to four journeymen. It would effectually prevent confectioners from carrying on their business. He asked what was to become ot the youth et the colony under this bill, and he asserted that one effect would be to! reduce journeymen'B wages. He .admitted that boy labour was a difficult question to cope with, but this bill did not meet the difficulty at ail. It would be calamitous to workmen and calamitous |o masters. _,

The, Hon. Mr. SEDI}ON had thonght this question had been so thoroughly explained on every publio platform that it was, not necessary to ofloi any - lengthened explanation. He accused Sir B. Stoat of misrepresenting the bill, and said the proposal to have one apprentice for,every four journeymen was not in the billataU.but a recommendation from the Labour. Billß Committee, which could be carefully considered by the House and either accepted or rejected. The position that had to be faced was that father* of families should be allowed to maintain their oWn families bj their earnings, and not be .dependent on their children. He^ said ~ there were 500 children • and girls employed inlfcbe colony ,who.received'no pay-, meat at all* 200 received 2a 6d » week, whilst

the great majority received ths munificent salary of Ss per week. One result of this bill would be that boys who went to a trade would find when they had finished their apprenticeship that they would not be driven.out of their trades by boys who received" small pittances. If the industries of the colony could not be maintained without degrading our manhood, then the. sooner those industries were closed the better for the colony. He si'ited that confectioners' unions were in favour of this bill, and the great majority of employers wero "in favour of a ; fair bill of some kind. He asked whether it would not bo better to provide fathers of families with employment at skilled workmen than for boys. There were plenty of channels of employment open to them on farms and in agricultural pursuits. The measure was not new, as a simi'ar one was introduced by the late Minister for Labour, which was generally appreciated throughout the colony. He did not say this bill was perfect, but they should do their best to make it in Committee a workable measure.

Captain .RUSSELL said Mr Seddon complained of frequent interruptions when he was speaking to the House, but he had only himsalf.:to blame for it, as he never rose to address the House without indulging in a vulgar style of oratory and, with a desire to address the people outside. Mr Seddon had told them that the bill introduced by Mr Reeves was well received throughout the colony, but if that were so would the PVemier have allowed the bill to fall through. The Premier had stated that the bill was explained from every platform.ia the.colony, but it whs » pity it was not explained in the House or to the committee. The principal result of' passing this bill would be, in his (Captain Russell's) opinion, that the wages of journeymen would be very seriously reduced; and ho believed that the general feeling of the Labour Bills Committee was that it would be well to postpone the bill until they had some better evidence as. to how it would^ affect both masters and employees. He (Captain Russell) saw no indignity in a father being helped by a son; but the Premier did not .object to a son helping his father in the country, although he could not agree to such help being given in towns. He hud been of opinion that a measure of this kind would be useful, but he was now of opinion that it would drive young people out of the colony who wished to become skilled workmen. They would have to <;o to Australia to learn trades, and they would then come back to this colony, and the result would be that the wages of journeymen here would be materially reduced.

The Hom.W. J.. STEWARD would vote for the second reading of the bill, but he objected to some of its provisions. He thought there would be great difficulty in adjusting the number of apprentices to be allowed. . Mr EARNSHAW thought the bill in its modified form would throw such a quantity of boy labour on the market as would cause a calamity in the labour world. He should,however, support the second reading, in order if possible to adjust the proportion of boys to journeymen, but if passed as it stood, the bill would do more to reduce the wages of journeymen in the colony than anything else that could happen. *

Mr BUCHANAN said the Premier-had told them that the bill was framed on the evidence taken before the Labour Bills Committee, but he quoted from portion of that evidence given by a large employer of labour in Wellington to the effect that the bill was unworkable. He (Mr Buchanan) thought the bill1 would have an injurious effect on the industries of tbe colony, and he felt quite satisfied that it could not be made a satisfactory measure.

Mr "MASIiIN- thought the bill had bean greatly improved by the Labour, Bills Committee, and it was very wise to strike out all reference to unskilled labour. He should vote for fchs second reading of tbe bill, but would oppose the third reading if all the provisions were to apply to the country as well as to town, aB the conditions were very different. The Premier had told them there were 500 girls employed in the colony who received no wages, but in more cases girls' gave their services in return for learning the trade of dressmaking. He hoped' they wonld not be prevented from doing so, and that this provision would bs struck out of the bill. He condemned the proposal to employ one boy for every four journeymen. -

Mr PINKEBTON strongly supported the bill, and quoted cases where ho one but boys were employed, to the detriment of journeymen. They were told that if boy labour were not allowed manufactories would stop, but they had bitter stop if they could not be maintained without the employment of boys.

Mr BUDDO supported the bill, recognising it would be to the advantage of the yonng people of the colony. He sounded a note of : warniog, however,'as to the necessity of doing nothing to interfere with the development of our colonial industries. He thought, at the same time, it was unadvisable to bring down a bill of this kind at the present stage of the sessionl

Mr'a. W. RUSSBLL intended to vote for the second reading of the bill, but said it would require considerable alteration in committee before" it was made a" workable measure. He had: taken a great amount! of interest in the 'Master and Apprentice Bill, and he was not betraying any secrets when he eaid the draft copy of the bill framed by the late Minister for Labour in 1891-was forwarded to him. Many of the suggestions he made on that occasion were embodied in Mr Beeves'g bill. He thought that instead of providing for compulsory apprenticeship some plan might have been formed :by which employers and employees in different trades might be got together and agree to the number of apprentices to be employed.

The debate was interrupted by the 5.30 adjournment.

EVENING SITTING.

The House resumed at 7.30. ; MASTBR AND APPRENTICE. ■'. . ■'. Mr WILLIS considered it rather a" paradox that while the Government were encouraging Protection they were bringing in a bill that would hamper industries in every direction. If the Government proposal to have one apprentice for four journeymen were given effect to it would be impossible for manufacturers in the colony to compete with outside people. He instanced the case of a printing office, and said each machine required two or three boys, but if the bill were passed these boys would have to be dismissed and men put in their places, simply to lay on and take off 'sheets from a machine. Many newspapers would also have to cease publishing if all adult labour-had to be employed. He wanted legislation introduced that would give boys employmeat; not to deprive them of it. '•;..'

Dr NEWMAN thought the whole system of apprenticeships was entirely wrong, and if they wanted to educate their young people they would have to do it in some other.way. He held that a bad employer who employed a large number of boys injured a good employer who employed many men: He should support the second reading of the bill, but he asked the Premier even now to strike out the apprentice clauses and let the other remain. Although he . should vote for the bill, he hoped to see it considerably amended ia Committee, »nd he favoured instruction for youths in technical schools in the colony. . •

Mr ML A.CHLAN regarded the bill as a most absurd piece of legislation, which he hoped was never intended to pass. He did not consider it the bill of this Government, as it bore the impress-of a departed spirit (the late Minister for-'Jjf,bour). His opinion was they ought to allow people to take oa as many apprentices as they iiked, and not to limit them to one for four journeymen. They should allow freedom to the people who wero engaged in carrying on manufactories. He thought the bill was not nissnt to pass.

Mr CROWTHER resented the iitatements of those members who said oursonßand daughters were impoverished. His opinion was tunt ih« people of this colony were the most happy.and contepted on the face of the earth. He opposed the bill, and said it did not emanate from those' who were most affected by it. Ha refused to believe that the state of our population was apytbiDg like so bad as represented by some members, and he was sure it would riot help them in their election.'' ■ ': • '4 ■ • • - -

Mr'ftflLLAß was surprised at MrCrowther's opposition to the bill, and said Auckland was known as one of the greatest sweating dens of the colony,?',, Auckland was also responsible for bringing 4pwn',wages, and for the introduction of boy labour.- It had also nearly ruined the TailoresseV Union. He strongly supported the bill., Although he admitted it was a difficult subject to deal with, be denied that the result ef the bill would be to close factories. He admitted if the bill were passed it would reduce the margin of profit to employers, but it would train our boys and girls and make them competent. ~" ' . •

Mr ALLEN said Mr Millar had told them the bill would reduce the margin of profit to employers, but if that were so, what would be the effect on wages ? It would certainly mean a reduction in wages of men. .He accused the Premier of being desirous of. making the employment of boys more difficult than before, and said the bill would prevent anybody between 15 and 20 years from finding employment unless they became apprentices. He instanced also the case of a country baker, who could not carry.on his business if this bill wore carried. He could not understand the motives of the Premier in bringing down such a bill, which should be entitled " A Bill to Prevent the Employment of Young People in New Zealand." They should do everything they possibly could to encourage the employment of our young people, *nd he was astonished at this bill being brought down by a Liberal Government.

Mr COLLINS said the House would agree that the Government were particularly unfortunate over this bill. But he should support the second reading. He did not think ths* Government wished the bill to be of such % compulsory character as was represented by several members. The bill was a step in the right direction. The sting of the bill was in the schedule. He asked, Who ever heard of a village bakor employing four journeymen ? Why, the thine was absurd, The same argu-

] ment applied to bootmakers, ssddleri, &c. And in adjusting the sumber of apprentices some knowledge of the particular: trade was required. ■< ■'■■ ; • : : ■ ! Mr BELL understood the object of the bill was to limit boy'labour by providing that every boy should bo indentured. What was demanded by trades .councils wag that there should be a limit of boy labour in factories. .'lf the bill.were not meant to limit boy labour, then it had no meaning at all, arid should be thrown out. But if it did. mean that, it would be~a great'change in the present system; Mr R. M'KBNZIB said' if the bill were carried it meant closing factories in the colony, and people in the country would not be able to obtain employment if it became law. . Mr MORRISON said the-principle of the bill was to endeavour to regulate the employment of boy labour in ' certain (killed trades and handicrafts in the colony, and they should legislate to effect this. ■ He supported the bill, and said it would.be the means of instructing boyn in trades of various kinds more efficiently than at present. . t : Mr HALL said the bill had been chiefly considered from the town point of view and not from the country point. He approved of the bill, but thought good workmen-couid 'only be socured by boys being properly apprenticed. Mr MASSES resented Mr Millar's statement respecting the wages paid in Auckland, and said the average paid in-Auckland was quite equal to that of Dunediu. He did not object t*> labour legislation when it was for the benefit of the'people, but the proposal in this bill was extraordinary and most unworkable. The bill was nob worthy of being considered by intelligent men, and would do more harm than good to those it was intended to benefit.

Mr MACKINTOSH thought if the number of boys were limited factories would ba crushed out of existence. He should vote for fche second reading of the bill, but he thought it would be altered very considerably in Committee. He would be no party to anything that would prevent the boys and girls of,, the colony from getting employment. : Mr T. MACKENZIE congratulated Mr Mackintosh on the sound common sense he displayed in spaakiug on this bill. He (Mr Mackenzie) held it was almost impossible to get a boy into any employment, aud thia bill would make it still mote difficult. He commented on the fact that several Government supporters who disapproved of thin billl were still going to vote for it. Mr Collins had told them the clauses were bad and the schedule was worse, and yet he declared he would vote for the bill. He referred in condemnatory terms to several Labour Bills brought in by. the Government, which he regarded as harassing to the people of the colony. ' He held th'nt was a reason why our boys were not employed.' These bills were street corner legislation, and so long as they remained on the Statute' Book, so long would they be unable to find employment for the youth of the colony. He criticised adversely the schedule to the bill, and pointed out that whilst it provided that a boy must ssrve five years before he cut a man's hair, he could eogags. in agricultural pursuits (whioh were far more important) without any training at all, which he considered a pretty state of Bffairs. He nhould oppose the bill, as it wa« likely to stiil further cripple the employment of lade in the colony. '

Mr FR4SEK regarded this as a most important bill, and one that would be far reaching in its effects. It would, do more harm than good. He felt sure, and he hoped, when the bill came out of Committee it would be altered even to its title. He should not oppose going into Committee, as he believed the bill would be most materially improved.

Mr W. HUTCHISON had :no doobt the bill could be improved in Committre, but he hoped members would look at the bill with a view to make it practical and workable. If they did that they would make oue or two steps forward iv the amelioration.' oE labour which was the principle of the bill,

Mr R. THOMPSON defended Auckland from the stricture passed on it in the debate. He said there was no other city which bad got so little assistance from the Government and there was no other city so prosperous. There was one peculiar feature about the present discussion which was that every mernb&r condemned the bill, but they all declared they would vote for it. He was opposed to the bill, but was convinced there was no intention of passing it in its present form.

Mr 6. J. SMITH said they were now getting at the important bills of the session, bat he thought there was little chauceof this bill getting on the Statute Book, owing to being postponed so long. This bill was an improvement on the previous bill, and so far the Premier deserved to be congratulated, but it : would require very careful' handling in Committee. " .' ; ■ ' . ■-'■'. ■ The motiou for the committal of the bill was carried by 33 to 22. " ' The following is the division list: —■ Ayes (33). — Messrs Baddo, Buick, Cadman, Carnell, Carroll, Collins, Karnshaw, Flatman, Hall, Hall-Jones, Harris, Hogs', W. Hutchison, Joyce, J. W. Kelly, Lewis, M*sliu, ,T. M'Kenzie, M'Nab, Meredith, Millar, Mills,- Montgomery, - Morrinoni Newman, Piiikerton, Firani, G. iW. KusseU, ;Seddon, Stevens, Taaner, T. Thompson, ■Ward. '- - ■••- ■•■■'; ,■ Noes! ,(22).—Messrs Allen, Bell, Baohauah, Carncroes, Crowth'er, Duthie, Graham,. Green, Guinness, Heke, Houston, W. Kelly, Lang, Lawry, T. Mackenzie,.'Massey, M'Gowan, K. H'KcDzie, M'Lachlan, O'Regau, \V. tt. Russell, R. Thompson. BILLS COMMITTED. The Hoa; Mr SBDDON moved the formal committal of the Shop ami ' Shop Aisistants . Act Amendment'Bill.—Agreed to. -The Hon. Mr SKDDUN moved theicommitttl of the Hawkers .Bill.,—Agreedto. i The House rose at mid uight.