BOY IMMIGRANTS

Southland Times, Issue 18935, 23 September 1920, Page 6

BOY IMMIGRANTS

ANOTHER MASTER AND APPRENTICE BILL. DELETION OF PENAL CLAUSES. (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, September 22. The House went into committee to-night on the Master and Apprentices Amendment Bill No. 2, in the charge of the MoTi. W. Nosworthy. A number of amendments deleting the penal clauses and generally liberalising the measure were introduced by Administrator’s message. Mr \V. A. Veitch (Wanganui i said he considered that the measure would have to be still further amended to completely guarantee the interests of boys brought out under the bill.

Mr H. E. Holland (Buller) said that the Labour Party would oppose almost every clause in the bill, because there was so much in it that was destructive of personal liberty. It was simply legalised slavery.

Mr Mitchell said he did not agree with Mr Holland. He thought the bill would give a better life to hoys brought out under it than ever they had a chance of getting in the Old Land, yet he thought no boy should he brought out unless his parents or guardians pave their consent to his coming, and he proposed to try to amend that clause, lie, however, favoured the permissive clauses of the bill which were necessary.

Mr .1. McCombs (Lyttelton) contended that the Labour Party’s attitude towards the bill w:ts now being endorsed by all parties in the House. He remarked that it was not generally known by the people of the dominion that under the bill its it was introduced immigrant farmer apprentices would lie liable to '‘three days’ solitary confinement’’ for "any breach of duty, disobedience, or ill-behaviour in bis service," and that an apprentice running away or absenting himself "shall when found be brought hack and compelled to serve hit? master for so long a time as he has absented himself unless he makes reasonable satisfaction to his master, failing which he may he imprisoned for any period not exreeding three months, besides serving the period of time for which he was absent." That the emphatic protest of the Labour Party was not in vain was evidenced by the fact that the Government proposed to drop both these clauses out of the bill, but without repealing them in the principal Act. He asked the Government not only to expunge these clauses from this bill, but to repeal them in the original Act. I Messrs Lysnar, Isitt, McLeod and Jones gave the Bill support. The latter contended the objectionable clauses in the Bill were already th e-daw of the land, and hail been so for many'years. Mr E. G. Howard (Christchurch South) said the only difference between the Labour Party and the rest of the House was one of degree. The Labour Party only saw less good in the Bill than other members. Mr C. E. Statham (Dunedin Central i said the fault of the Bill was that it was an attempt to graft a new law on to the old and obsolete statute of IStlo. The fact was that the law of apprenticeship in New Zealand was in a state of chaos and required remodelling. He recommended the Government to withdraw the Bill and reconstruct it. He strongly objected to the clause permitting bovs to sign indentures on their own behalf without the consent of their parents or guardians. Mr G. Witty (Riccarton) maintained that if boys were brought out they should have a choice of employment when they arrived here, and nor, be sent to employers who might not know how to treat them. It was a better policy to encourage rearing our own children than to import them. Mr R. Masters (Stratford) maintained that Labour’s real objection to the Bill was that they opivosed any scheme of immigration whatever.

After the supper adjournment the discussion on the first clause was continued by Mr Parry, Dr Thacker and Dr Newman, who opposed various clauses of the Bill. Mr Horn gave the measure qualified support. At 11.10 a division was called for on the first clause, which was agreed to by 48 to 14. In Clause 2, Dr Newman moved to increase the age at which hoys could be brought out from fifteen to sixteen. The amendment was lost by 83 to 2fi. Mr Holland moved that before a boy left England he should know who his employer was to be and what his employment was to !>e. The Hon. W. Nnsworthy said this was impracticable, and if curried would kill the Bill. Mr Savage said, the Australian law provided that this should be done. If it was practicable in Australia it should be so in New Zealand. Mr l.ysnar said the Australian law referred to adult skilled labour and had no application to the rases under discussion. The Minister said it was proposed io put the boys on one of the State farms until suitable employers and employment could he found for them. The? amendment was lost by ol to 10. Mr Fraser moved r.n amendment fixing the wages to be paid to the boys at the same scale as those fixed under the rural workers’ award. The amendment was lost by 40 to 10. Mr McCombs moved an amendment providing that the terms of contract with boys ue set out in the Bill and not left to be prescribed by regulation. The amendment was lost by 42 to 10. Mr Veitch moved an amendment that passage money should be paid by the employer and not out of the wages of the bovs. This was lost by 41 to IS. .Mr Ravage proposed to strike out the provision for payment of passage money hy the Lmv and the substitution of a provision that the boy’s wages lx- paid weekly. This was lost by 40 to ,13. The following amendment moved by the Minister in sub-clan? e 4 of Clause 2 was agreed to: "The indenture shall state the minimum amount of wages to be paid oy thc employer to an apprentice during the first year of his employment in New Zealand, and shall contain a provision that the wages shall be paid by the employer to, or on account of, or for the benefit of the apprentice.” After 1 o’clock (lie I.alxmr tactics of moving frequent amendments were continue;!. The House was still considering Clause 2 when the Telegraph Office closed.

SCOPE OF THE AMENDMENTS. NEW PENAL CLAUSES. {Special to the Time.-.) WELLINGTON, September '22. The amendments by the Minister of Apiculture ir. the Master and Apprentice Amendment Bill give additional protection to lads who may be brought from Britain as apprentices io New Zealand farmers. The imprcnticeship is to be for a period of not less than three years or more than five years, and shall not be terminated by the apprentice attaining twenty years of age. The indenture is to state the minimum amount of wages to be paid to the apprentice during the first year. The wage paid after the first year is to be the wage usually paid on farms to boys of like age and capacity. The original Bill embodied penal clauses of the main Act, which were framed half a century or more ago. These clauses provide that an apprentice who offends against the terms of his indenture may he taken before two justices of the peace and sentenced to solitary confinement in prison for a period not exceeding three days. An apprentice who leaves his master during his apprenticeship may be required to serve the lost time when he is found. The Minister has omitted these clauses and substituted a new clause providing (1) That an apprentice guilty of a breach of duty, disobedience, or ill-behaviour may be taken before justices who may reduce his wages by not more than one half for a period not exceeding two months. (2) An apprentice who leaves his employment may be arrested, and in addition to reduction of wage may be sent back to his employer if resident in the country. (3) An apprentice who refuses or neglects to submit to due control may be taken before two justices who may order that the indenture shall be cancelled and the apprentice sent back to England.