THE Southland Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. WEDNESDAY, 29th DECEMBER, 1897

Southland Times, Issue 13936, 29 December 1897, Page 2

THE Southland Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. WEDNESDAY, 29th DECEMBER, 1897

From a number of enquiries made it would appear that considerable uncertainty prevails among those most interested as to the fate of the Wages Protection Bill. These might be set at rest by the simple statement that the bill was killed in the Legislative Council; but as it may probably be revived at some future day, and is a measure vitally affecting individual rights and personal liberty, it may not be inopportune again to refer briefly to the purport of the bill. It was, as we before characterised it, one of a batch of four so-called “ policy ” measures that the Ministry threw upon the table, and permitted to be torn and patched by all and sundry without resigning, or even threatening to resign. Not the least setive in proposing amendments were some of the Government’s supporters, and certainly it was their special friends in the Upper House who eventually gave the Wages Protection Bill its quietus. The bill, as introduced by Mr Beddon, consisted of two parts, with very distinct and diverse objects in view. The first part, following a preamble which declared any arrangement entered into between employer and employee jn the matter of effecting insurances for their mutual benefit and protection to be “ unjust and oppressive,” proceeded, of course, to make provision for prohibiting such practices in future. The second part, in a round-about way, proposed to control the action of public bodies in such manner, with regard to their workmen, that these bodies, had the bill passed, would have found themselves debarred from letting work by contract. The whole of this second part was struck out in Committee of the House, and as that was really the most important and far-reaching part of the proposed measure nobody seemed to be greatly concerned as to what became ol it afterwards. It was, however, passed on to the Council in its mutilated state, and there the finishing stroke was given to it. As a good deal of capital is likely to be made against the “Tories” in the Upper Chamber over the action of that body regarding this and some other defunct measures, it is desirable that the public should fully understand the situation. The debate jn the Council, at the close of which the bill was shelved, was very brief, and the shelving was thoroughly agreed upon by members of both parties, We shall here reproduce the telegraphic summary of that debate for the purpose of bringing two points involved therein very clearly before the public eye, and we commend them specially to the careful consideration of working men, The first is that what are called “ Labour members” in the Council spoke strongly against the half of the bill that came before them. The second is that the Council, including these Labour members, agreed with the finding of the Labour Bills Committee that the allegations of the preamble were not only not sustained, but absolutely disproved. The Hol. W. C. Walker having moved to commit the bill “ The report of the Labour Bills Committee was read, in which it was stated that so far from the allegations in the preamble of the bill having been sustained, they bad been disproved, and the committee thought that the bill should, in the meantime, be withdrawn.—The Hon. J. Macgregor said that the evidence before the committee had shown that there was no necessity for the introduction of this bill. He urged the adoption of the committee’s recommendation. —The Hon. Mr Jenkinson did not see much harm if the bill were shelved for the present, as the necessity for it no longer existed. He would vote for the commitment in order to affirm the principle.—The Hon. Mr Bonar did not think the measure was demanded either by workers or employers, and read letters from employees protesting against the passage of the bill He moved the adjournment of the debate for a fortnight.—The Hon. Mr Rigg said that the recommendation of the Labour Bills Committee, in which the balance of power was held by men who hardly understood the position of working men, should nob be followed.—The Hon. Mr Richardson read a protest from the employes of a Wellington firm against the passing of the bill.—The Hon. Mr Pinkerton said that a workman had to pay his money to insure q.n employer against an employer’s own loss.—The Hon. Messrs Bolt and Jennings said that on the evidence before the committee they would support the suggestion to keep the bill in abeyance. There was no evidence of any compulsion on the parb of employers insuring men.”

The division taken at this point gave 19 for Mr Booar’s amendment and 9 against it, which decision had the effect, of course, of killing the bill, as, when the fortnight to the end of which the debate was adjourned, expired, there would be no House to resume it, It thus happens that master and man will be allowed for some time longer to enjoy the liberty and benefit of entering into agreements regarding insurance against accident which they may mutually deem advantageous. The report of the labour Bills Committee, the gist of which is above quoted, so far as the insurance question is concerned, is in itself a matter worthy of serious reflection. It certainly seems extraordinary that the head of the Government should introduce a bill to the House, with reasons for its creation attached, which a committee, composed chiefly of his own supporters, declare to be unfounded. In other words a necessity for the bill was set up. Mr Seddon probably reckoned on the falsity of his preamble being detected, with the result of the bill being killed. Its introduction, however, gives him a colourable, though specious, claim upon “ the workers,” while its rejection by the Council will furnish him with an additional topic

with which to tickle the ears of the credulous. We have averred from the first that the Premier had no expectation of his labour bills passing ; indeed that he deaired their rejection. Thia contention is, we think, fully sustained by the attitude taken up by some papers that support the Government since the fate of these measures was sealed. The Lytti Iton Times, even, which is gen rally temperate and fair, speaking of the rejection of the Old Age Pensions Bill, breaks out in the following rabid style. —“ The battle ground has been well chosen, for seldom, if ever, have the hopes and desires of all humane and progressive people been so intensely focussed upon a legislative reform as they were upon the Goveroment pro~posal to introduce a scheme of old age pensions. In proportion to the high expectations formed, the disappointment following upon the Council’s action has been both keen and bitter. It is felt not only that the will of the people has been deliberately flouted, but also that a mockery has been made of their purest philanthropic convictions, at the bidding of a party whose callousness to the claims of suffering humanity is proved to be as marked as its antipathy to progiess. All the generous impulses of the people will therefore be arrayed against the Chamber of that chartered obstruction. On the constitutional side of the question, als' 1 , no better occasion than the rejection of the Old Age Pensions Bid could have been found for challenging the expediency of allowing the Council to continue its career of obstruction and destruction.” This, we are sorry to say, can only be looked upon as a ranting appeal to vicious class prejudices and animosities ; a method of dealing with a great question utterly unworthy, nnd in a large unlike our Christchurch contemporary. ■ The bill was not thrown out because it wss an Old Age Pension scheme, but because it was not. The principle on which the bill was supposed to bo built was accepted by both Houses almost unanimously ; but analysis showed that the provisions did not support, but rather subverted that principle, and substituted a scheme '.for the expansion and encouragement of improvident and fraudulent pauperism. The Upper House, so far from being threatened with extinction, deserves the thanks of the community for having prevented the passing into law of a measure manufactured during a “scrum” on the floor of the House, and consequently full of incongruities. It is simply despicable to assail men in such a manner for exercising their ind pendent judgment. It is still more contemptible to accuse the Labour members of the Council, as some have done, of having been false to the Ministry that appointed them, We regard the action of these men as proof of some worthiness on their part for the position to which they have been elevated, They have recognised that their first duty is to the country ; that their office has stronger claims upon them than their patrons, and it is a fortunate thing for the colony, that, in this case, conviction and not conclusion carried the day.