BOY LABOR.

Taranaki Daily News, 23 September 1920, Page 5

BOY LABOR.

IMMIGRANTS FROM HOME. LABOR OPPOSES NEW BILL. By Telegraph.—Press Association. 1 Wellington, Last Night. The House of Representatives this evening went into committee on the Master and Apprentices Amendment Bill (No. 2), in charge of the Hon. W. Nosworthy. A number of amendments deleting penal clauses, and generally liberalising the measure, were introduced by message. Mr. W. At Veitch (Wanganui) said he considered 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 (Labor leader) said •the Labor 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. G. Mitchell (Wellington South) did not agree with Mr. Holland. , He thought the Bill would give better life to boys brought out under it than ever they had a chance of getting in the Old Country, yet he thought no boy should be brought out unless Tiis parents or guardians gave their consent to his coming, and he proposed to try to amend that clause. He, however, favored the punitive clauses of the Bill, which were necessary. SEVERE PENALTIES. Mr. J. MeCombs .(Lytteltdn) contended that the Labor Party's attitude towards the Bill was now being endorsed by all parties in the House. He remarked that it was not generally known by the people of the Dominion that un- , der the Bill as introduced immigrant farmer apprentices should be liable to "three days' solitary confinement" for "any breach of duty, disobedience, or ill behaviour in his service," and that "an apprentice running away or absenting himself shall when found be brought back and compelled to serve his master for so long a time as he has absented himself, unless he makes reasonable patisfaction to his master, failing which he may be imprisoned for any period not exceeding three months, besides serving'the period of time for which he was absent." That' the emphatic pro- " test of the Labor 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. Ho nsked the Government not only to expunge these clauses from this Bill, but to repeal them in the original Act. Mr. C. E. Statham (Ounedin Central) said the fault of the Bill was that it was an attempt to graft a now law on to an old and obsolete statute of 18(15. The fact was that the law of apprenticeship in New Zealand was in a state of ribaos, and required remodelling. He recommended the Government to [withdraw the Bill and recast it. He strongly objected to the clause permitting boys to fiign indentures on their own behalf without the consent of their parents or guardians. /

. CHOICE OF WORK. Mr. G. Witty (Riccarton) maintained that if hoys were brought out they Bhould have a choice of employment when they reached here, and should not be sent to employers who might not know how to treat them. It would be better policy to encourage the rearing of our own children ■ than to import them. Mr. R. Masters (Stratford) maintained that Labor's real objection to the Bill was that they opposed any scheme of immigration whatever. At 11.10 p.m. a division was called for on the firat clause, which was agreed to by 48 votes to 14. In clause 2, Dr. A. K. Newman (Wellington last) moved to increase the age at which boys could be brought out from fifteen to sixteen years.. , The amendment was lost by 33 votes to 2fi. Mr. Holland moved that before a hoy leaves England he should know who his employer was to be, and what his employment was to be. The Hon. W. Nosworthy 'said this was impracticable, and if carried would kill the Bill. Mr. Savage sahl the Australian law provided that this should be done. If U was practicable in Australia, it should be so in New Zealand. The Minister said it was proposed to put boys on one of the State farms until suitable employers and employment could be found for them. The amendment was lost by 51 votes to 10. Mr. P. Fraser (Wellington Central) nSoved an amendment fixing the wages to be paid to boys at the same scale as fixed under the rural workers' award. The amendment was lost by 40 vote* to 10. Mr. McCombs moved v an amendment providing that the terms of the contract with the boys be set out in the Bill, and not left to be prescribed by regulation. The amendment was lost by 42 votes to 19

LABOR'S BLOCK TACTICS. Mr. "Veiteh moved an amendment that the passage money should be paid by the employer, and not out of the wages of the boy. This was lost by 41 votes to 18. Mr. Savage proposed to strike out tlie provision for the payment of the passage by the boy, substituting provision ■that the boys' wages be paid weekly. This was "lost by 40 votes to 33. The following amendment moved by the Minister in sub-clause 4 of clause 2 was agreed to: "The indenture shall state the minimum amount of wages to be paid by the employer to an apprentice during the first year of his employment in New Zealand, and shall contain a provision 'that the wages are to be paid by the employer to, or on account of, or for the benefit of, an apprentice." After one o'clock the Labor tactics of moving frequent amendments were continued, and the House was still considering clause 2 when it was left sitting at 2 a.m.

'3 THE NEW PROPOSALS. PENAL PROVISIONS CHANGED. (By Wire.—Parliamentary Reporter.) Wellington, Last, Night. Amendments proposed by the Minister for Agriculture in the Master and Apprentices Amendment Bill give additional protection to lads who may be brought from Britain as apprentices to New Zealand farmers. Ii& apprenticeship is to be for ft