PARLIAMENT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21147, 3 October 1930, Page 10

PARLIAMENT.

YESTERDAY’S PROCEEDINGS. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL / .(!**■ United Pbess Association.) WELLINGTON, October 2. 'Hie Legislative Council met at 2.30 P.m. to-day. NURSES AND HIDWIYES REGISTRATION BILL. The Nurses and Midwives Registration 'Amendment Bill was reported from the Statutes Revision Committee, with minor amendments. FIRST READINGS. The Local Elections and Polls Amendment Bill and the Rating Amendment Bill were received from the House and read a first time. BILLS PASSED. The New Zealand Institute Amendment , Bill and the Incorporated Societies Amendment Bill were put through committee and passed without amendment. The Council adjourned at 2.40 p.m. natil to-morrow. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. The Bouse of Representatives met at 2.30 p.m. to-day. A WELLINGTON LOCAL BILL. The Wellington City and Suburban Highways Construction aud. Hutt Road Amendment Bill (Mr R. M‘Keen) was introduced and read a first time. , DAIRY PRODUCE ACT. Mr P. Lye (Waikato) presented the 'report of the Public Petitions Committee on the petition of Mr A. H, Owep and ■ 55 others praying for . an amendment of the Dairy Produce Export Control Act. The committee reported that in the absence of sufficient evidence of any widespread desire lor snch a change as the petition requested it had no recommendation to make. Mr O. A. Wilkinson (Egmont) regretted that a more favourable report had not been made to the House. The Act ■ had been a bone of contention ever since -it was passed, and/to-day the board 1 was costing the farmers £40,000 per yeah The board could very well reduce Its expenditure, for at present the personnel was too ■ large. , i , Mr T- W. * M‘Donald (Wairarapa) teaid that under the~system of voting on a tonnage basis . it was ■ wealth which decided the constitution of the board, and the average'producer had little to do with it He moved that the report be referred back to the committee for further consideration. . The amendment was seconded by Mr W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne), who said the Dairy Board would have to be either reconstituted or scrapped. The Government nominees and the representatives of commercial interests should bo eliminated from the boprd, .which at present was loaded against the producers. Mr W. L. Martin (Raglan) suggested that Mr H’Donald wag not aware of what the petitioners actually sought They had been asked if they favoured a reconstitution of the board, and - had agreed that this would be an improvement, bat what they, really desired was an opportunity of vpting whether, the board should continue to exist or not. Mr Martin added that he was satisfied this was not wanted by the producers. He agreed that there dissatisfaction with the tonnage basis of election. , . Mr J. A. Nash (Palmerston) said he thought the personnel of the board could be reduced. The board had made serious mistakes in the past. It had been given powers that were'too wide. Mr J. T. Hogan (Rangitikei) took exi ception to the contract the Dairy Board had made with the shipping companies, whereby it was not possible to ship prodried from certain ports, such as Wanganrii, , This contract established the policy of centralisation to the ruination of a number of the smaller ports, and to the detriment of many, dairy factories. He Urged that the Government should lose no time in altering the, constitution of the board. , . .Mr A. W. Hall (HauraW) said ho desired to remind the House that the petition had asked that, a poll of the producers should be taken to determine whether the Dairy Coptrol Board should or should not bo abolished. He had not heard one member suggest that the board - should be abolished. He considered an ■ impartial committee could not have reached any other decision than that which .had been reported to the House, especially in view of the fact that the • petitioners had not produced any evidence . of a. widespread, desire for the change advocated. Nothing could be gained by referring the report back to the committee. ■ Mr W. J, Poison (Stratford) declared that. the question of the' amalgamation of the Meat, and Dairy Boards should ha given the earnest consideration of the House. The business could be more economically and equally efficiently conducted by a single executive, Mr Lye said he believed the powers of the Dairy’ Control Board should be restricted, and he agreed with those who had criticised the tonnage basis of election. He realised, however, that the reconstitution of the board was a matter apart from the subject of the petition, and he assured the house that nothing could be gained by referring the report back to the committee. Mr H. E. Holland said he understood the object of the petition was to have a referendum taken on the question of whether the board should continue to exist or not. If that were so the proper way to have gone about the matter would have been to have presented ; a petition signed by at least one-tenth of the producers. In that case the House would have; had no- option but to have granted . the request for a referendum. Ho agreed that there would be no good purpose served by referring the report back to the committee. At the same time, he pointed out that he and his party strongly disapproved of the . present undemocratic system of electing the board. The amendment was defeated on the voices, and the report was laid upon the table. The House adjourned at 5.30 p.m. EVENING SESSION. The House of Representatives resumed at 7.30 p.m. THE WASHING-UP BILL, In moving the second reading of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill, the Acting Prime Minister (Mr E. A. Ransom) said it was simply the usual washing-up measure. The Bill was read a second time. APPRENTICES BILL. The Minister of Labour (Mr S, G. Smith), in moving the committal of the Apprentices Amendment Bill, said it had been considered by the employers and workers concerned throughout the Dominion, and it met substantially the decisions reached at the Apprenticeship Conference in, 1929. Mr R, A. Wright (Wellington Suburbs) asked whether it could be taken that all the parties had agreed to the provisions of the Bill. Mr Smith; Yea. Mr Wright said he wished to bring under the Minister’s notice a difficulty experienced by parents at the present time in getting their boys apprenticed. He was not suggesting that the country should turn out more journeymen than it could employ, but be thought that all employers should endeavour to engage

a reasonable number of lads. He suggested that the present day necessity for employers to fill in so many books, forms, and returns was to some extent responsible for the reluctance to emplov apprentices. It had been advocated that technical and other schools should undertake teaching boys trades, but this, while an ideal, would be very expensive. The Leader of the Labour Party (Mr H. E. Holland) suggested that in the event of the bankruptcy of an employer an apprentice should be entitled to a lump sum as compensation on the ground, that his contract of apprenticeship had been broken. The Bill provided that in such circumstances the apprentice should he entitled to three months* wages. Mr Holland did not consider this went far enough. The boy was not only thrown out of work, but his term of apprenticeship was broken as well. Mr J. S. Fletcher (Grey Lynn) advocated the appointment of representatives of technical schools or similar bodies to the ' Apprenticeship Committee to hold the balance between employers on the one hand and employees on the other. He did not think a lump sum in compensation would meet the situation to which Mr Holland had referred. It would be more important to a boy if arrangements were made that his training should be continued. Mr W. D; Lyanar (Gisborne) said the Minister should be very guarded in making allowances to apprentices! wbo might he abusing their positions too much. Provision was protect the apprentice up to the date of an offence. Mr A. E. Ansell (Chalmers) disagreed with Mr Lysnar, and claimed, that an apprentice had a right to protection and to appeal. He agreed with Mr Fletcher regarding the carrying on of a hoy’s trade. Mr Smith, in reply, said it was with the idea of minimising difficulties in apprenticing boys that the method had been brought into operation, and he hclievetl it was operating very well. Replying to Mr Holland, he said the object of the clause relating to a bankrupt employer was to make at least some improvement on the present position of apprentices. Continuing, Mr Smith said that power already existed for the appointment of a representative of a technical school to the Apprenticeship Committee. The motion, to commit the Bill was agreed to. STOCK AMENDMENT BILL. Moving the second reading of the Stack Amendment Bill, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr A. J. Murdoch) said it was designed to include motor vehicles in the provision of the principal Act preventing the unrestricted removal of stock by night. Mr A. Hamilton (Wallace) said the Minister deserved commendation for bringing the Bill forward. The advent of the motor lorry had, ■ho thought, materially ’assisted sheep stealing by night If necessary the police should be given extra facilities to prevent or to detect the removal of sheep or other stock in the dark hours of night The Bill was read a second time. SCAFFOLDING AND EXCAVATION Moving the committal of the Scaffolding and Excavation Amendment Bill, the Minister of Labour (Mr S. G.< Smith) said it gave greater security to those engaged in excavation work, Local bodies and other public bodies .were brought within the scope of the Bill. This clause had given rise to a certain amount of criticism on the part of one or two local bodies, but there was no doubt the provision wat necessary. Objection was raised on the ground that there worild be , a duplication of inspection in the case of work under the direction of a city engineer. The Minister pointed out that in most cases, at any rate, the inspection would be delegated by the engineer to a foreman, arid for that reason the provision in the Bill, that local body excavation work should, like all other excavation work, be under the, supervision of an inspector, was necessary. Mr R. A,-Wright (Wellington Suburbs) said that even if the city engineer did delegate the inspection work it could be presumed he would delegate it to a capable person. He contended that the immunity of such work from accidents in the past indicated that the provision was unnecessary. The Leader of the Labour Party (Mr H. E. Holland) said it was difficult to understand how any opposition could be raised when a matter of safeguarding life was concerned. Mr B. M'Keen (Wellington South) said the Bill would offer great relief to city .engineers. The debate on the motion to commit the Bill was interrupted by the rising of the House at midnight till 10.30 a.m. to-morrom