DOMINION PARLIAMENT

Waikato Times, Volume 111, Issue 18631, 9 May 1932, Page 8

DOMINION PARLIAMENT

APPRENTICES’ CONTRACTS POWER OF CANCELLATION. CLAUSE OF FINANCE BILL. WELLINGTON, Saturday. In the House of Representatives, when the proposal that power should be given to magistrates to amend, suspend or cancel contracts of apprenticeship, which is the subject of a clause in the Finance Bill, came under review, it attracted close attention. The proposal arises out of the possibility of economic conditions making it unreasonable for an employer to continue to carry out the terms of the contract, but compensation may be paid to the apprentice if the magistrate thinks fit.

The Minister of Labour, the Hon. A. Hamilton, intimated it was proposed to add a sub-clause with a view to ensuring that no application for amending, suspending or cancelling a contract should be disposed of by a magistrate until reasonable opportunity to be heard had been given by the other party to the contract to the district registrar of apprentices and the appropriate apprenticeship committee, if any.

The suggestion was made by Mr D. G. Sullivan (Labour —Avon) that in view of the importance of the subject, the matter should be held over for consideration next session. Admittedly,. he said, the difficulties of employers were great, but they were negligible compared with those of the apprentice whose career would be wrecked. A scheme should be devised which would impose less hardship on the apprentice. Did Not Affect Future Contracts. Mr R. McKeen (Labour —Wellington South) argued that the Arbitration Court was the proper body to deal with applications under the proposal and not the Magistrate’s Court. Mr F. Jones (Labour —Dunedin South) contended it would be difficult to get uniformity of opinions if the question were to be decided by magistrates, whereas uniformity would be assured if the matter were dealt with by the Judge of the Arbitration Court. Mr Hamilton said the clause did not affect future contracts, but only those in force at the passing of the bill. The proposal made now had been under consideration for a considerable time, and he did not think it advisable to postpone the question. Regarding the suggestion that the Arbitration Court should hear applications, Mr Hamilton pointed out that there was only one Judge in that Court and it would take a very long time to hear all the cases.

Mr McKeen sought to amend the clause by moving that a register of apprentices should be compiled and that in the event of their former employers returning to the industry, the apprentices affected by this legislation should have the first claim for reengagement. He said it was very undesirable to have a lot of untrained boys and his amendment would safeguard the position. Mr McKeen’s amendment was lost by 40 votes to 20 and the clause, as amended by the Minister’s additional sub-clause, was adopted by 4i votes to 19. . .

BEQUESTS TO HOSPITALS. ABOLISHING OP SUBSIDIES. DISAPPROVAL OF MEMBERS. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Saturday. In the House of Representatives today, Labour members expressed opposition to the clause abolishing subsidies on voluntary devises, bequests and other gifts of money or property to hospital boards, Mr D. G. Sullivan (Labour —Avon), declaring that it would entail hardship to put this into effect at a time when boards were so greatly in need of assistance. Mr H. Atmore (Independent— Nelson) said that if the Government abolished the subsidies it was likely to dry up the source from which such bequests came. Mr M. J. Savage (Labour —Auckland West), said the passing of the clause would mean that hospital boards would have to And the subsidies themselves or reduce their services. The closure was applied at 12.55 p.m. and the clause was passed by 43 votes to 25. The House adjourned at 1.10 p.m.