APPRENTICES BILL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26215, 27 July 1946, Page 8

APPRENTICES BILL

PASSED BY HOUSE GENERAL APPROVAL OF MEASURE (From Our Parliamentary Reporter! WELLINGTON, July 26. General support was given to the Apprentices Amendment Bill when it was discussed by the House of Representatives to-day. The Bill was put through all stages and passed. The Minister of Labour, Mr J. O’Brien, said that in a number of trades an apprentice was trained in only one branch of the particular trade. For instance, a lad might be apprenticed to the printing trade and be trained in machining or linotyping, but not in the full trade. The result was that he could be ‘employed after training in- only one section of the trade. In such a trade a lad trained in a small establishment was better off, for he learned all branches. He believed that the footwear trade, more than any other, specialised in single operations, training and using 'labour on one machine or operation. The Bill, the Minister said, followed the recommendations of the Apprenticeship Commission, whose objective was to get rid of the uncertainty of apprenticeship as reflected in the fluctuating .numbers. In 1929, for instance, there were 9900 apprentices, and the figure dropped to 3329 in 1935, only to reach 10.000 in 1940 and 13,360 Uiis year. Danger to be Avoided Mr W. J. Poison (Oppn., Stratford) said he was informed that employers and employees were in general agreement on the measure, and welcomed the Bill. He was anxious to see opportunities created for expansion in skilled trades and for the training of tradesmen. As more were in demand, so would the better training of young people in industry become essential. He knew that in England technical education was being provided in many industries for apprentices in the employer’s time and at his expense. The similar provision in New Zealand would have to be carefully safeguarded to make sure that it was not ridden to death or carried too far. Such provision might choke the flow of apprentices by making things too difficult for employers to play their part.

Mr O’Brien: That will be under the control of the committees.

The Minister of Defence, Mr F. Jones: Training in a day technical school will help a boy considerably in his trade. '

Mr O’Brien: Two years there might cut a year off his apprenticeship. Mr W. A. Sheat (Oppn., Patea), said it appeared that the major difficulty that would delay the expansion of daylight training was the need for the extension of buildings and equipment. He believed that the Bill would be generally supported as a means of helping to give young people the opportunity of skilled trades training. He hopea there would be more elasticity with quotas because in some districts where there were small numbers of employers their desire to train apprentices was limited by the quota. Mr R. McKeen (Govt., Wellington South), said That in the past some apprei tices were often kept too long at sweeping the floor and boiling the billy. The appointment of a Dominion Commissioner and District Commissioners, plus the local apprenticeship committees, would provide machinery guaranteeing proper training. He did not think the old committees had sufficient jurisdiction. Value of Practical Training

Mr W. Sullivan (Oppn., Bay of Plenty), said he did not think the enforcement of day training for technical schools in the employers’ time would help apprentices. They were already on a 40-hour week, and probably worked only 37. Several hours a week away from their employment, spent at technical schools, would add to the costs in industry. The best place to train a lad was in a modern workshop which had better machinery than most technical schools where the machinery was often obsolete, the accommodation insufficient, and many of the instructors not as up-to-date as foremen in industry. He supported the proposal to give apprentices some document at the end of their training to show that they were qualified, and to give country youths who wished to learr. a sound trade an opportunity of going to the centres to do so. Mr M. H. Oram (Oppn., Manawatu), asked why three recommendations listed in the Commissioner's report were not included in the Bill. They were: That a meeting of all interested parties should be held at the signing of indentures; that the term of apprenticeship should be expressed in working hours rather than in calendar years, and that when Dominion apprenticeship orders were being considered they should be reviewed in the light of present industrial practice. Mr Oram said he considered that they were valuable recommendations and would make a good Bill better. Mr Jones, spoke of the desirability of training apprentices in more than one industrial process. This, he said, would make more jobs potentially available to the men- concerned and would benefit the employers by enabling them to make the best use of their pool of labour. After further members had expressed their views, the Bill was read a second time, put through the remaining stages, and passed.