BUSINESS OF PARLIAMENT

Taranaki Daily News, 3 October 1930, Page 9

BUSINESS OF PARLIAMENT

APPRENTICES AMENDMENT DIFFICULTY FACED BY PARENTS. PROTECTION. TN BANKRUPTCIES. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. Moving the second reading of the Reserve© and 'Other Lands Disposal Bill in the House of Representative© to-day, the Hon. E. A. Ransom said it was simply the usual washing-up measure. The Bill was read a second time. The Hbn. S. G. Smith, moving for the committal of the Apprentices Amendment Bill, said it had been considered by the employers and workers concerned throughout the Dominion. It met substantially the decisions reached at the apprenticeship conference in 1929.

Mr. R. A. Wright asked whether it could be taken that all parties had agreed to the provisions of the Bill. Mr. Smith: “Yes.”

Mr. Wright said he wished to bring under the Minister’s notice the difficulty experienced by parents at the present time in getting their boys apprenticed. He was not suggesting the country should turn out more journeymen than it could employ, but he thought all employers should endeavour to engage a reasonable number of. lads. He suggested the present day necessity for employers to fill in so many books, forms and returns was to some extentresponsible for the reluctance to employ apprentices. It had been advocated Chat technical and other schools should undertake teaching boys trades but this, while an ideal, would be a very expensive one. Mr. H. E. Holland suggested that in the event of the bankruptcy of an employer an apprentice should be entitled to a lump sum as compensation on the ground that his contract of apprenticeship had been broken. The Bill provided that in such circumstances an apprentice should be entitled to three months’ wages. Mr. Holland did not consider this went far enough. The boy was not only thrown out of work but hi© term of apprenticeship was broken as well. PERSONNEL OF COMMITTEE. Mr. J. S. Fletcher advocated the appointment of representatives of. technical schools or similar bodies to the apprenticeship committee to hojd the balance between the employers, and the employees. He did not think a lump sum in compensation would meet the situation to which Mr. Holland had referred. It would be more important to the boy- if arrangements were made that his training, should be continued. Mr. W. D. Lysnar, said th© Minister should be very guarded in making allowances to apprentices, who might be abusing their positions too much. Provision was made to protect an apprentice .up to the date of an offence. Mr. A. E. Ansell disagreed with Mr. Lysnar. and claimed that an apprentice had a right to protection and appeal. Mr. Smith, in reply, said it was with the idea of minimising the difficulties in apprenticing boys that the Act had been brought into operation, and he believed it was operating very well. Replying, to Mr. Holland; he said the object of the clause relating to a bankrupt employer was to make at least some improvement on the present position of apprentices. Power already existed for the appointment of a representative of a body such as a technical school board to the-apprenticeship committee.

The motion to commit the Bill was adopted. , - Moving the second reading of-the Stock Amendment Bill, the Hbn. A. J. Murdoch said it. was' designed to include motor vehicles in the provisions of the principal Act preventing unrestricted removal of stock by night. , Mr- A. Hamilton said the Minister deserved commendation 1 for bringing the Bill forward. The advent of the motor lorry had, he thought, materially assisted sheep stealing by night. . It was necessary that the police should be given extra facilities to prevent or detect the' removal of sheep or other stock at night. The Bill was read a scconff time.

Moving for the committal, of the Scaffolding and Excavation Amendment Bill, the Hon. S. G. Smith said it gave greater security to those engaged in excavation work. Local bodies and other public bodies were brought within the scope of the Bill. This clause had given ris*' to a certain amount of criticism on the part of one or two local bodies but there was no doubt' the provision was necessary. Objection was raised on the ground that there would be duplication of inspection in the case of work under the direction of a city engineer. The Minister pointed out that in most cases at any rate inspection would be delegated by the engineer t)O a foreman, and for that reason the provision in the Bill' that ’local body excavation work should, like all other excavation work, be under the supervision of an inspector was necessary. Mr.. Wright said that even if a city engineer did delegate 'the inspection work it could be presumed he would delegate it to a capable person. He contended that the immunity of such work from accidents in the past indicated that provision was unnecessary. Mr. H. E. Holland said it was difficult to understand how any opposition could be raised when a matter of safeguarding life was concerned. The debate was interrupted by the rising of the House-at midnight till 10.30° to-xfiorrow.