THE HOUSE

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2297, 3 November 1914, Page 6

THE HOUSE

REFORM BILL PASSED CONTENTIOUS CLAUSE AT ISSUE RIGHTS OF WOMEN The House of Representatives sat at 11' a.m. ' ' ' The report of the conference of managers of the House and the-Council on the Legislative Council Bill was presented. : • ' . • ■ • The Right Hon. W. P. MASSEY, moving that the report of the conferonce bo agreed to, said the report was so. clear that it scarcely required' explanation. There was no difficulty about any.of the amendments irade by the .House with the exception of that clause by whioh it was proposed to admit women to the Council. Tlie conference had struck out the clause passed by the House, and proposed the following new clause:—"When, and so soon as; women are eligible for nomination and election to the House, they shall also be eligible for election to the Council." Anion, member: You agreed to that? Mr. Massoy: Yes. It was the best arrangement we could make. I preferred tliat to losing the Bill.' He add- | ed that in his opinion a distinct advance forwardiiad been made towards admission of women to Parliament. Opposition Amendment. SIR JOSEPH WARD (Awama) moved as an amendment that clause 18a,. the clause pro/idiug for the right of women to sit as members of the Council, as originally passed by the House, be insisted upon, and that the proposed new clause be disagreed with. Ho argued that the proposal of the conference embodied no advance, because the Council could still liavo a voice in opposing the admission of women to the Lower House. He did not think tho conference should have agreed to. tlie amendment proposed by the Council's managers. •• •' • Mr. Mr'mmjs It was. nithsr-that or L>*vtho Bill. I kflow there ara some.

members who are trying to kill the Bill by a side wind.

Sir J. Ward said that was not his intention, because the Bill was not to come into force at once. If the Reform Government came back to power after the elections they would probably adhere to the Bill, and if the Opposition Party should be in office they would probably amend it. •

MivMassey: As a matter of fact, I intond to give Parliament another opportunity of reconsidering the Bill before it comes into operation. There are some amendments'necessary.l can see that. Ho explained further that if the House managers had nob accepted the proposals of the Council's managers the Bill would have been killed.

Sir J. Ward: I don't consider killing the Bill of the least importance. He contended that the House ought to insist upon its amendments, ana suggested that a new conference be demanded.

Mr. G. W. RUSSELL (Avon) said that if amendments were to be brought down next year, then .clearly the'Gov-, eminent recognised that they were putting an immature measure . on the Statute Book, which already required some important amendments. He agreed that the Bill should be postponed • for one session, to allow the electors to express, an opinion on it, especially as the operation of the Bill was deferred for/a,year. If they accepted the report of the managers, what guarantee nad they that the Council would accept a future proposal to allow women to sit in the House? If the House: accepted the proposal, it was allowing the. Council to take up a dominant position, which the House should not tolerate.

■Mr. L. M. ISITT (Christchurch North) said that he had hoped that, the question would not have been made a party one. The Prime .Minister was willing to allow women to sit in the Council, but he had declared strongly against their coming into the House. If'the House now agree! that women should sit in the ,Council_ only on condition that they first came into the House, the House would be stultifying itself.' They should not throw up their hands as soon as they met with a little opposition. ...

"An Excuse to Kill tho Bill." . Dr. A. K. NEWMAN (Wellington East) said' that the procedure being followed by the Opposition was simply an : exonse-to kill tho Bill. He considered the clause proposed by the Council was of no use whatever, but ho hoped that the Bill would -be allowed to pass, in spite of this. Afterwards the whole question at issuo would depend on the ■votes of tho people, and women would be able.to-make.their influence felt at the polls, so that if they could not secure a majority in favour of the admission of. women to tlie Legislature it would be their own fault. The Counoills proposal was simply a round-about way of saying that the law. was exactly as it now stood v But those who were declaiming against this - proposed newclause wero those Who during the last six months had tried t<i kill the Bill on any conceivable pretext. Mr. T. M. WILFOBD (Hutt). said that tho Council had protected themselves. They said: "Wo love your idea of women sitting in Parliament, but being so democratic we - say that they shall first sit in your House." 1 Mr. J. G. COATES (Kaipara) said that personally lie would always vote that women, sho.uld come info both Houses, but he was pledged to vote for an elective Council,, and would vote for' the new clause as it stood, and against Sir Joseph Ward's amendment. He preferred that to the loss of the Bill. '

Mr. H. G. ELL (Christchurch South) said that the Prime Minister was agreeing to a compromise that made it practically impossible for women ever to sit. in tlia Council.

Mr. J. H. ESCOTT (Pahiatua) said that the contention of the member' for Christchurch South was ridiculous, for no one could say what future legislators would agree to. By carrying the amendment tney would be killing, the Bill, and' preventing two great democratic reforms, coming into operation— an elective Upper House and proportional representation. - Mr. P. C. WEBB (Grey) said that he would vote for the amendment,- even if it killed the Bill, because he was quite satisfied that if ,the lion, members on the Other side' of the House were sincere the passing of the amendment 1 was not going to kill the Bill.

Best Course to' Save the BIIL The Right Hon. W. P. MASSEY said he agreed with sonje; honourable members who. had .already spoken that the question should not be a party one. Hie managers for. the House had gone into the matter. very fully and from every point of view, and they were convinced that if they insisted upon the.position they had taken up it would mean killing the Bill. Of two evils they decided to choose the less. The member for Avon had said that to allow the Council to prevail in this matter would be to allow them to take up a dominant' position. But surely this was a question affecting as it did the constitution of the Oounoil on which the Council had a right to a voice. It seemed, to him that a good deal would be gained by the new clause. If the Council's clause was now agreed to by the House, it would not be open to the Council oh: any future occasion if legislation should.be initiated in the House to admit-women to sit in the House; to refuse to-agree to such a proposal. He believed the Bill .required amendment in one'or two particulars before it came into operation, but that did not affect the point at issue. That point was this: "Are we going to kill tlie Bill for the sake of the clause moved by the member for Wellington East ?" Although lie (Mr. Massey) agreed with that clausA. he did not propose' to take the risk of killing the Bill.

The Division. The amendment was defeated by 30 votes to 21. Following was the division list:— . ■ Ayes (21V Colvin I'oland Davey Robertson Dickie Russell ' i!)ll 1 Seddon ■' ■ Glover ■ , Sidey '. • Hindmarsli Thomson, J. C. Isitfc Ward iU'CnUum Webb Ngata . ' ' Wilford Parata Witty L'ayno ' .' Noes (30). A|len Harris Bollard, J. Ilordinan, Bollard, It. F. Worries Bradney Lee Buick Malcolm Coatcs -Mandcr Dickson Massey . Es'eott .Millar ifisbor Nowmaa, A..K. Frwer Nosworthy

Guthrie Okey Rhodes, R, H. Thomson, Q. M. Pomare Veitch Scott Wilkinson, Sfcatham Young Pairs:— For the amendment:—R. W. Smith, Buxton, Forbes, Atinore, M'Donald, Carroll, Rangihiroa, R. M'Kenzio, Craigie. ... •. 1 Against:—E. Nowman, 0.. K. Wilson, F. H. Smith, Hino, Hunter, Buchanan, Pearee, Sykcs, Rhodes. \ 'i'he report of tho conference was adopted on the voices.

Forgotten Pairs. After the division, Mr. H. Q. ELL said he had unfortunately forgotten that he had given a pair to the member for Wairara.pa, and he wished to have his vote recorded as that honourable member would have voted. Mr. W. A. VEITCH said that ho had also forgotten a pair, but had remembered it before the division, though too 'ato to leave the Chamber, and so escape the obligation to vote. He had therefore voted against the amendment; otherwise he would have voted for it. Mr. D. H. GUTHRIE, Senior Government Whip, said that the member for Wallace had voted, and he was paired. Mr. J. C. THOMSON. (Wallace) eaid lie had given a pair to expire at 11 a.m. oil Saturday, but .no other pair. Mr. Guthrie said he had a pair given by the honourable member to expire at 1 7.30 on November 2. Mr. Thomson accepted the pair, saying that it had escaped his memory. The official state of the voting • was not altered, by these explanations, so that the figures stand as above.'

THE MINING BILL. A LONG DEBATE. MORE ABOUT PNEUMOCONIOSIS. The Hon. W. FRASER moved the second reading of the Mining Amendment Bill. He proposed to say very little ■ about it, .because he was sure the Bill was really needed. . It was much the same Bill as hacTbeen Before the House last year. Mr. ; H. POLAND (Ohinemuri) said that if the Bill had been introduced in 1912 he would have congratulated the Government, because it embodied the recommendation of the commission which reported in that year.. He was strongly of opinion that the night-shift in metal mines should be abolished. . SIR JOSEPH WARD (Awarua) said he was of opinion that the mining industry in New Zoaland was being very shabbily treated. Mr. Massey: Has been for many years.

Sir Joseph Ward: No doubt. ' At any rate, I think the industry ought to be very much better treated than it is now. Ho welcomed the'Bill as being in the interests of the miners. ' " Mr. E. SCOTT (Otago Central) eaid the Bill marked a distinct advance in mining legislation. -Mr;-P. C. WEBB (Grey) accused the faovernment of having dropped the Bill previously because of influence having been brought to bear by mine-owners. • _ The Hon. W. FRASER said that the discussion 011 the Bill was really je9pardising'the Bill, and that the best fnends of the:Bill were, in fact, those who said least about it. Long speeches : of haJf- an • hour. .ivero really, no more than Appeals to'coristituents. He agreed with Mr. Poland and others who had spoken, that more liberal, provision should be. made .for'miners suffering from pneumoconiosis, hut if employers were to be made; liable as for. compensation for accidents, thoy l must have the right to insist on medical oxamination before employing men. The. House would never consent to any other; arrangement, because any other arrange-, ment would be inequitable. He claimed that he was the first Minister of Mines to give practical expression to his sympathy for the miners suffering from this disease.. Enough had not yet been done, however, and he hoped yet. to be able to make some-more liberal provision for them. ' . ■ The Bill waa read a, second time. Question of Qualification./ In Committee, Mr. G. M. Thomson moved au amendment to require the holder of the 'degree of Associate of, the Otago School of Mines to have three, years' (instead of five: years') experience- in underground work before-becoming a candidate for a mine-manager's . certificate. This would place the candidate in the same position as the hold or of the degree of Bachelor of Engineering (Mining), conferred by the New Zealand University. The amendment was carried by 23 votes to 21.

The clause then met with considerable opposition. •It was contended that three years' experience was not 'sufficient to qualify a man for the position of mine manager. At length Mr. Fraser asked l,ea;ve to move an amendment to increase three years to, four, and leave being granted, he moved his amendment accordingly. The House went to a division at 7.50 p.m., and the amended Clause was retained by 31 votes to 18.

• Mr. H. Poland'(Ohinemuri) : moved an amendment'to provide that workmen's inspectors should be deemed- to be workers employed by the owner for the purposes of the Workers' Compensation Act. •

The Minister accepted the amendment, which was agreed to on the voioes. '

Pneumoconiosis. PoIal ! d moved an amendment te the ckuse in the Act referring to the Gold Miners' Belief Fund, to make miners entitled to draw the same compensation the event of being incapacitated by pneumoconiosis as if they were disabled by acoident. He argued that the relief at present afforded under the fund to people who'.sullered trom complaint was utterly inadequate.

llw Hon, W. Fraser . said thai to ask tho mine-owners to pay this 'compensation would be an act of gross injustice, because, it was quite possible tnat a man incapaoitated by pneumoconiosis and compelled to leave /his work in a mine would not contract and develop ,the disease by working in that particular mine. If it were, to be insisted- upon the mine-owner must' liavo the right to have men. medically examined before they came into his em-\ ploy. ...

Mr. Poland : Oh, no. ■ Mr. Fraser: The mine-owner would see that he employed no men -suffering from this disease. And how should he. with this liability hanging over him ? He (Mr. Fraser) could not accept the amendment. If the honourable gentleman had said that the Government'should take it over, then he would ask the" honourable member how to provido the roonoy. Under the present circumstances he was not going to .ijndortako liabilities which he could not'seo his way to. pay. What 1 ho did propose to do. was .to devise a scheme by which it would be made possible for' miners themselves to provido against beiug incapacitated by illness, by some pension system. This would ensure that their wives and dependents would not bo destitute.

A division was taken on tho amendment. and it was negatived by 27 votes to 24. • The Bill was reported with amendment at D.lo p;m., read a third time, ftud passed. . ~