PARLIAMENT.

Southland Times, Issue 14468, 6 October 1899, Page 3

PARLIAMENT.

[By Telegraph.]

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

Wellington, Oct. 5.

On the motion for the committal of the Young Persons Protection Bill Mr T. Kelly expressed the opinion that the allegations of widespread juvenile immorality in the colony was not borne out by the evidence. He would support its going into committee, bub thought the people should have an opportunity of exprissmg their opinion upon the measure.—Mr Jenkinson said the bill, in his opinion, would be a powerful preventive.—Dr Grace said he was satisfied thar juvenile depravity was not common ; on the contrary, the general moral tone of the people was uncommonly high. In his opinion the civilised race which allowed its policeman to put a hand on a girl in the street and, by that mere touch, cootaminated her character, did a very f. o’.ish thing.—Mr Kerr declared that the bill was unnecessary. —The Minister of Education held that the State should make up for the lack of parental authority. The bill aimed at stopping children falling into immoral ways.— Motion to go into committee agreed to by 17 votes to 16, the ayes being Bowen, T. Kelly, Scotland, McCullough, W.C. Walker, Fraser, Harris, Twomey, Swanson, Arkwright, &. L. Smith, Rigg, Jones, Jenkinson, Taiaroa, Tomoana, Bolt. Noes: L. Walker, Baillie, Barnicoat, W. O. Smith, W. Kelly, Kerr, Gourley, Feldwick, Pinkerton, Jennings, Bonar, Grace, Johnston, McLean, Montgomery, Shrimski, In committee ib was decided by 17 votes bo 15, to reduce the interpretation of “ young person” from 16 to 14 years. The remainder of the bill passed through committee without material amendment and the third reading was made an order of the day for next afternoon.

Evening Sitting. It was decided that the Council should insist on the clause concerning apprentices being retained in the Employment of Boys or Girls Without Payment Bill. This clause was struck out of the measure by the House of Representatives. The Local Government Voting Reform Bill road a osoond time, and the Council rose at 9.15 p.m. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. The Petitions Committee reported on the petition of H. Ellis (Raratonga), praying for consideration of his alleged wrongful imprisonment, recommending that as the petitioner had not exhausted his legal remedies that they had no recommendation to make. Mr Duthie moved as an amendment, that the petition be referred back to the committee for further consideration and for the evidence of Mr Mose, the late Resident, which was carried. On the motion for leave to introduce tho Native Land Act Amendment Bill Mr G, Hutchison asked what was the uee of introducing such »n important bill at this late

stage of the session.—Mr Seddon called upon the House to join in passing the bill as, if the present opportunity were lost it might never get it again The proposal was that the natives should have an equal representation on the Board proposed to deal with land amounting to over three million acres, which would be thrown open for lease and, in some cases, for sale. All the natives were in favour of the proposal to hand over the land to the Board to deal with, and although it was late in the session the bill could pass if the House would take advantage of the opportunity now offered and which might never again occur. To save their race from extermination the chiefs had been brought to see that the bill would prove a great advantage in preventing them selling land and in making reserves for the future. —Leave given to introduce the bill which was read a first time.

Mr Seddon gave notice to introduce the Maori Lands Administration Bill.

I Mr Pirani gave notice to ask if the Government would supplement the offer if the troops for the Transvaal by the offer of the I services of a battery of the permanent artillery, with maxim guns. The House went into committee on the Workers Compensation for Accidents Bill, and it was agreed that the proceedings I should be reported in Haneard,—Captain I Russell did not see how ib was possible to repoit proceedings in committee without lnI creasing the Hansard staff.—Mr Seddon raid that it the staff required strengthening that coujd-be done. On clause 1 Mr Allen moved an addition to the clause, “as prepared to insure every risk under the Act.” Mr Duthie moved to alter the title to | “Workmens” instead of “ Workeis.”—Lost by 32 to 22. In reply to a question Mr Seddon said it was not proposed to bring the Act into force until ms month after the passing of the Government Insurance Bill, so as to give time for employers to make arrangements for insuring their workmen.—Mr Allen pointed out thab until the Government Accident Insurance Department was in working order'the bill should not come into force.—Mr Seddon moved an amendment making the date of coming into operation of the bill the first day of May, 1900. — Carried. Mr Smith contended that the Government Office should nob take risks thab would be refused by a private office.—Mr Al'cn urged thab the Government must be prepared to take a large collective risk.—Mr Alien’s amendment was lost by 30 to 29. Mr Moore moved an amendment to clause 2, defining “defendant,” which was carried.

Evening Sitting. Consideration in committee on the I Workers Compensation for Accident Bill I the question of including agricultural I labourers eaused considerable discussion; I also the definition of workers.—Mrßolieston urged that the bill should be universal in its I application, and thar, to be equit tble, the I State should take up lhe work. He would I oppose its extension to agricultural labourers. I —Mr J. Allen moved an amendment in the direction of making the bill apply to all I classes of workers. —Mr Seddon opposed, I contending that if carried it would render I the bill unworkable.—Mr Taylor could not understand count r y members opposing the I bill applying to agricultural labourers, and I he hoped the Premier would stick to his promise to include that class. As many accidents happened on a farm as in any other industry.—Mr Montgomery pointed ti the number of accident) to bushfellers as an argument iu favour of including that class. Country labourers were worse paid than any other class of the community, and ho did net see why they should be excluded.—Mr Hrgg deprecated raising the c-y town v. country. Agricultural and pastoral pursuits were not more free from accident than any industry and should [uoi?] be exempt from the operation of the bill.— Mr Berries did not see why farmers should not protect their employes in the same way as it was proposed to compel manufacturers to do. The co:t to farmers would be very smell considering the benefit.—Mr Wason considered that it was grossly unjust to exclude agricultural labourers. In the hundred and one branches of agricultural work men were exposed to accident and were as much entitled to protection as workeis employed in industrial pursuit?. —Mr Morrison would like to see the bill pass, as printed. It wn absurd to contend that there was as much danger in agricultural pursuits as in workshops.—Mr Wilson thought it would be an injustice to the small farmers to include agricultural labourers, contending there was no analogy between farmers and small manufacturers.—Mr Massey contended that the amendment would be a hardship on farmers. Manufacturers were protected by a high tariff, while farmers had to depend on outside markets for the prices of produce.—Mr Fisher said the amendment would be destructive to the bill and asserted that it was not meant to perfect the bill but to render it inoperative.—Mr Gilfedder contended that there had been no expressed desire by agricultural labourers to be included in the bill and until then they should pass the bill as it stood.—Mr Duthie disclaimed any intention to kill the bill, and regretted that the cry town v. country had been raised. He approved of the proposal to extend the principle of the bill and saw no reason why country workers should not be protected as well as those in towns.—Mr E. G. Allen considered that small farmers should be excluded. Those who advocated their inclusion did not grow oats at Is 3d a bushel.—Mr R. Thompson c impbioed thab the towns were always thrusting class legislation upon the country. He could not support the amendment as it imposed an additional burden upon thecountiy. He contended that the S ale should take charge of the whole system of industrial insurance.—Mr J. Hutcheson denied that trades unions had inspired the bill; its necessity was eo obvious on general grounds that he could not see that anyone could object to it.—Mr Brown saw great difficulty in the way of making the bill apply to all workers and believed that the only true solution was compu s >ry State insurance.—Mr Allen said the purport of the bill was that the woiker or those dependent oa him should receive compensation, but the bill in its present form restricted the application of the priuciple, which was wrong He instsnod the coal industry as being on the same footing as agriculture in respect to not being protected. If, as contended, the effect would be to lower the wages of the agricultural labourers, surely that argument would also apply to coalminers, whose occupation was one of the most dangetous. —Captain Russell believed that the amendment contained the only principle that should govern the question. He obj cted to State insurance as approaching socialism. By in-' eluding small farmers there was a danger that they would be ruined if made responsible for accidents happening to workers casually employed.—Mr Scobie Mackenzie said the ditcussion showed the imufliciency and partial character of the bill. Legislation on the subject could not etop at the poin Vindicated in the bill and to make it complete it would require to be extended to include casual labour.—Mr Sligo contended that the inclusion of agricultural labourers would not jeopardise the bill but could not support making the bill universal as it would open the door to great hardships.—Mr Allen’s amnndment was lost by 47 to 11.' The discussion was continued by Messrs Fraser, Flatman and Massey, who opposed including agricultural .labourers, and by Messrs Herries, Taylor, Tanner and Carnot'osß, who advocated their, inclusion.

Ab 1.30 a.m. a’ motion that strangers be excluded, the object being to relieve the Hansard staff, was lost by 31 to 25. [Left sitting]