The Timaru Herald. TUESDAY, AUGUST 15, 1893.

Timaru Herald, Volume LV, Issue 5747, 15 August 1893, Page 2

The Timaru Herald. TUESDAY, AUGUST 15, 1893.

- I Another instance o£ the fondness of the present Government for interference with the daily occupations of the people is famished by the Inspection of Building Appliances Bill, which is now before Parliament, though it may have been introdnced more with a view of parading the industry of Ministers m providing legislative food for members than with a settled determination of passing the measure during the course of this session. We may remark here that upon this occasion the Government have surpassed their previons efforts m the matter of Bill mannfacture. Crowds of these documents are brought m every week far no other purposes than to amuse members and show that the Government are not idle. Not a tenth part of these Bills will become law, and those who introduce them are well aware of the fact. It would appear that the last session of this Parliament will achieve notoriety by the enormous volume of its abortive legislation, and the waste of time and money consequent thereon. But to return to the Bill mentioned m our opening sentence. It is not a novelty, but is a rehash of a Bill which was introduced last year and duly slaughtered at the close of the session. Its author is the Premier. It makeo contractors liable for the efficiency of building appliances, and provides for the appointment, powers, and duties of inspectors for buildings m course of construction or removal, with penalties for obstruction of the inspectors or non-compliance with the conditions of the Act. The penalty for obstruction is not less than £5, nor exceeding £20 ; and for non-compliance, from £5 to £50. Any workman may complain of the inefficiency of appliances, and the inspector shall treat tmcb complaint as confidential, under a penalty of £5 if he reveal the name of the informant without his consent, unless required to do so by law. All penalties may be recovered m a summary manner under the Jastices of the Peace Act. In moving the second reading of the Bill last year, Mr Seddon instanced a few scaffold accidents that had occurred during the year 1891. He said that " they were, of course, merely two or three typical oases," but it is more probable that he had hunted far and near for evidence which might tend to show that the law wanted amending m the direction proposed. However, al though, thanks to the strength of the Government following, he was enabled to have his Bill read a second time, a most effective attack was made on it during the debate. Mr T. Mackenzie remarked that if all the Government measures were carried into effect, one half of the population of the colony would be employed as inspectors to look after the other half. It was an exaggeration, of course, but it expressed a general feeling m the country, that a Government, whose boast it was to "trust the people," were harassing them m all directions with a system of State inspection. We admit that notwithstanding that feeling, the Bill was entitled to fair consideration. It undoubtedly received it and the weight of the argument was against the Minister. Sir John Hall objected to the creation of a new authority. If, said he, further provision against accidents were required, the power should rest with the municipal authorities. They already had some powers of supervision, and their Btaff was always on the >pot ready to look after officers and see that they did their duty. Sir John did not deal with the question of whether increased powers were or were not necessary ; his objection was to the creation of another army of inspectors. The most powerful attack was made by Mr Pish. He showed clearly that there was no necessity for the Bill; that building acci dents were not constantly occurring through bad appliances ; and that the class of persons whom the Minister proposed to appoint as inspectors knew little or nothing about the erection of buildings. The inspection by the State would be either coßtlyor inefficient, and would very likely be open to both objections. A forcible argument against the Bill is contained m the following sentences, which aro taken from the Hansard report of Mr Fish's speech : " He had been engaged m the building trade m Dunedin for the last thirty years, and he made bold to say that, notwithstanding the terrible picture which the honourable gentleman had attempted to draw and place before them, there had not been during that thirty years a dozen serious accidents from defective scaffolding. He did not think there had been nearly that number. He only recollected two where persons were hurt — m one case fatally, and m another seriously — by the collapse of scaffolding. Why was this thus P First of all, an employer, under the Employers' Liability Act, was made liable for the death or injury of work men through his negligence m erecting the scaffold. That was the first protection to the workman ; and the second protection was that the workman himself was the very best inspector they could have, because the workmen themselves had to erect the scaffolding under the direction of the master builder, aud they knew better than the master builder m nine oases out of ten how a scaffold should be erected, Coming to the case of working bricklayers, they would take very good care they would not put up a scaffold which was going to fall down with them. They might make a mistake, the same aB their employer might do; and any scaffold erected under the supervision of the workmen themselves, and under the direction of the employer, would be passed without the smallest doubt by any of these inspectors provided by this Bill." He added that the inspectors to be appointed under the Bill would, m the case of sine hundred and ninety-nine buildings out of a thousand, pass the scaffolds as put up by the builder and i his men ; and as to the danger to the public, that was clearly a matter for the municipal authorities, who had full ' powers to provide for enclosures where building was going on. We have alluded to this Bill at some length because it is typical of that olaaa of med-

dlesome legislation which is dear to the hearts of the present leaders of the socalled Liberal party m this colony.