COAL MINES BILL

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XLV, Issue 11931, 29 October 1919, Page 5

COAL MINES BILL

Per Press Association

Wellington,’ Oct. 28,

In the House of Representatives tins evening the second reading of the Coal Mines Amendment Bill was moved by Sir Wm. Fraser, who ex plained improvements designed to preserve the safety of miners. Mr Semple said that although disappointed that the Bill did not embrace all mines, he thought the measure acceptable, except the provision under which a permit 'might be obtained (through the Minister) for an unskilled man to be placed in ebarge of a face. Such a man might cause a great disaster. Mr Semple asked that this clause be deleted. Its passage was fraught with possibilities of industrial trouble. Mr Holland hoped a comprehensive Bill dealing with the whole mining industry of the country would be brought down next session. He endorsed Mr Semple’s condemnation of the clausa which, if put in operation, could be used to defeat miners in industrial trouble, but such tactics might also lead to another tragedy, such as that at Huntly. The Minister declined to withdraw the clause, which., he said, might be necessary to enable a perfectly competent but nob legally qualified man to be employed in case of urgency. A similar clause was in force in New South Walea The Bill was read a second time and committed.

On clause 19, Mr P. Fraser urged that in permitting the possibility of inexperienced men being placed in charge of a mining face, the House would be incurring grave responsibility. Mr Semple declared that men accustomed to work only in a quartz mine would be incompetent in a coal mine and a source of danger m a gassy mine. He appealed to members to vote against the clause. If it was adopted, it would lead to serious industrial trouble. He declared that the clause was suggested by a member of the Mine Owners’Association. Men in mines had the last word and if any attempt was made to enforce the alterations of the law suggested they would not hesitate to act so as to protect their own life and limb.

Sir Joseph Ward said 'the proposal ■would place power in the hands of the Government which it was not wise should be tliera He opposed the Bill. The Minister stated that the clause was necessary in order that in the event of emergency coal could be mined to enable necessary industries to be carried on. “If industrial trouble arose they must be able to carry on, and there were competent people in the country who could be utilised in such emergency. No Minister was likely to send incompetent men into dangerous workings. He understood the attitude of the miner’s representatives, and'he spoke plainly as ho had been asked. The words put in this Bill would have a salutary effect on those who might be inclined to cause trouble.

Discussion was continuing when the House adjourned at 5.30.

The House resumed at 7.80,

Continuing the discussion on the Coal Mines Bill, Mr Holland said the Minister had referred to observation of the law. Mr Holland recalled the 1913 industrial trouble, when the Government helped to set the law aside by the formation of illegal Unions to defeat the watersiders and other strikers. Sir William Fraser at this point admitted that there might be a possibility of a Minister falling into an error, but lie hoped never to see such a Minister. He, however, was prepared to add to the clause Ue following words: “Provided toe Minister shall not exercise power except in urgent cases, and then on the recommendation of a Judge of the Supreme Court, who may hear evidence on the subject.’’ He thought there would be no question of the integrity of the Judge. There was no desire to interfere with any personal liberties, and this amendment would prevent any arbitrary action on the part of the Minister. Mr Witty thought the amendment should be acceptable, Mr Semple contended that the amendment did not do away with the Government’s power to use the Act for strike-breaking. Mr Isitt supported the proposed amendment.

Mr McCombs opposed the amendment on the grounds that It simply transferred the ultimate responsibility from the Minister to a man who was not responsible to Parliament. He suggested that the Minister’s action under the clause might be made contingent on the approval of Parliament, which represented the great third party—-the public. Mr Holland quoted Mr Justice Sankey’s report, recommending the admission of labour to a participation in the management of the industry wherein it was concerned. Mr Seddon considered the Bill as introduced was bettor than the amendment, but the Act of 1914 was better than either. It was a case of safety first, and they had seen how tbe Act of 1914 had worked. Mr Veitch consideredvthe most important matter was the preservation of the men’s lives and limbs. The House could not sacrifice life for the advantage of any party to an industrial dispute. Mr Russell protested against taking away the safeguard contained in the existing Act. The Minister pointed out that the action it was suggested should be permitted would not be taken in normal times. If Parliament passed this proviso it should be accepted as the judgment of the people’s representatives.

Mr Semple declared that it was the mineowners who really desired to see the clause enacted. He quoted one statement by the owners’ representatives that “they looked upon the miner as'a piece of ‘.merchandise —something to be bought and sold, ” Mr Payne declared that the Bill simply represented the interests of dollars as against human life. Was the clause going to increase or decrease coal production? He emphasised the danger that strife would be promoted by the clause, for the miners certainly would not go down the mines with unskilled men in charge. -v ® Mr Holland pointed out that if the clause was acted upon during a strike at a colliery, and some coal produced, its distribution would be impossible, as the men engaged on the railways, ships and .waterfronts wpnld join in support of the miners. The dense, therefore, would be futile in its effect.

Sir Joseph Ward said the House should not be a party to risking life to meet striker conditions. These should be met in another manner.

This clause was one of expediency. The Minister would be well advised to withdraw it

Sir John Findlay said the Minister had assured the ;House that the clause aimed only at meeting extreme cases, but the speakers had argued that it would be used in every case of a strike. The highest law was the safety of the State. Occasion might arise in which the whole community’s interests would be at stake through the action of a section of the community, and there should be means of meeting such a condition. He believed Judges could be relied upon to exercise judgment in the best interests of the Community.

On resuming after supper the Minister’s proposed addition to the clause was adopted on the voices. A division was then taken on the clause as amended and resulted : Ayes 33, Noes 19. The Bill was reported with the amendment and agreed to, and the Bill was read a third time and passed.