COAL MINES BILL

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

COAL MINES BILL

REPLY TO DETRACTORS NO "POWER BEHIND THE THRONE." The Hon.' W. FRASER (Minister of Public Works) moved; the second read- ; , ing of til© Coal-Mines Amendment Bill, :and drew attention to the fact that it, was founded upon the report of tho Min-, ing Commission. It was the Bill which he had prepared in 1913. To a remark that had been made by the member for. Grey that night that the reason why he • had not gone on with the Bill in 1912 was because he had been dissuaded by a power behind the throne, ho wished to give an emphatic denial. It'was true' that he had received a' deputation of, coal-mine owners, but he considered it his duty to receive deputations from all' and sundry. The deputation had notapproached Mm until the Bill was' through the Mines Committee, and they' had said that certain of the clauses tf passed would imperil the industry. That 1 ' deputation had received very little comfort from, him. He had told the deputation this: "It must be recognised that' the day when the question 'of providing' fon the safety and comfort of employees' can be left wholly in the hands of the' companies has passed;away, never to ' return." That was the comfort they had from him. (Hear, hear.) In preparing the Bill he Had considered the owners' interest as well as every other interest, and he told tlie deputation that'' lie proposed to pass the Bill. Later he'* had anticipations of difficulties in get-; ting the Bill.through, .however, in view' of the fact that he knew there would ~ be opposition to it, and that the Gov- \ ernment had a heavy legislative pro■gramme. He knew, in fact, that bis Bill ', would not have a'chance. In'the next . year there occurred-the strike, and'.he'• : saw very plainly again from this' and.' other difficulties-r-especially the wonder-' ful aasistanoe given to the Government ' by the other side—that he could not got tlie Bill through. The most 1 unprecedented' organised obstruction had been set up,' even worse'than' this year, 1 ' and this year it had been bad enough.- ' Once the strike had occurred in 1913, it was simply hopeless, to ask the House to give proper consideration to the Bill. 1 It! would have been impossible to'call evidence on the Bill, especially 'ae all ; the'coal-miners had gone illegally outon strike. , ■

Mr. Webb: Why didn't you prosecute' them?

Mr. Fraser: The honourable member knows very well ,why I did not prosecute theni. Continuing he said that in view of all the circumstances he had taken, all contentious matter out of the Bill, leaving only one or frvo clauses in it to, be passed, ;

No Thousht of Danger. Ho had been assured, and he believed,' that the Huntly mine.was>on6 of the. safest and best-ventilated mines in New . Zealand. The only mine of which he had personal knowledge was the Kai-' tangata mine, and. there he knew all. precautions were being taken. And the: present law. gave the. authorities, ample, power. ,to deal with a dangerous mine,.' although the power was not direct. The Inspector of Mines could order the withdrawal of all the men . from \a '• mine • if •' he thought the mine dangerous. Iftile owners refused to the men, the matter could be' referred to ■ arbitration, • and ho would . ask tho. . House what body of arbitrators would consider the demand unreasonable in the face of the testimony of rin export' that the mine,was highly dangerous to ■ life? This was the position as he understood it, and as the Huntly Commission had understood it, and he believed now that delay: of the Bill in ,<■ the 1913. ' had .not.- endangered-iV men- working in coal mines. The Inspector had- also the right to insist up- ~ on the use .of Davey lamps wheire doin- ; ger '~was . apprehended.,- ... There . wasample provision in the law to enforce all provisions for safety. It was true. • that tho power was not direct, and now the new Bill proposed: to givo the.Department power to insist on all safety, precautions without reference to an Arbitration Court. He repeated .that in view of the fact; that the coal-minors' were illegally on strike, he could no£ in-, troduce the' Bill in 1913, but the Bill . had been in print all tho time; Ho had told' the House then that ,he would introduce the Bill early tliis session, and lie would have done so but for the fact, that the war broke out a month after -- the House met.

An Unfair Suggestion.' It had been said, or tinted most: nnfairly, that the Bill would not have been-brought down but for tho Huntly disaster. He could assure the House that he lad never heard of any danger from gas in. the mine until he'read the file of the Department, containing a letter froni_ the Inspector (Mr. Bennie), of August?, suggesting a prosecution of the management. 'Mr. Bennie also said that he had had no assistance from-the union, -which as constituted, was • the creation of the companies. , Mr. Webb: Of tile Prime Minister: ■ Mr. Massey: What do you mean? ' . Mr. Webb: That you wero assisting■ them in the formation of that" union. Mr. Massey; It is absolutely untrue.- \ Mr. G. W. Russell: I call yotir attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the Prime Minister has characterised the, statement of an honourable member as absolutely untrue, and I a3kyou whother that, is a proper expression to useP ' . ■ Mr. Speaker asked Mr. Massey to withdraw the expression, but directed members that if thoy did not cease' making improper interjections he would' have to take measures\to deal with them.' Mr. Massey withdrew the expression "untrue,", and substituted ''incorrect:' 1 " First Hint of Danger. , Mr. Fraser said that'another letter on the file was from' the Inspector'of Mine's (Mr.' Heed), supporting _' Mr, . Bennie's suggestion for a prosecution _ol ' the oompany. These were the first indications he had had of danger in : the mine. , He had never heard before of former - burnings of gas in the mine;. and he had received tho letters .on August 15.. ;i Mr. Wilford: Oh, I can prove , otherwise.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member r . will have ail opportunity of speaking later if ho wishes. |VMr. Eraser went on to say that ho had approved the memorandum, of tlio Under-Secretary attached to ..the file, in- ' tending _ thereby. .to give authority for' the institution of proceedings, and this,, ho had done the same day ho received the memorandum. The Under-Secretary took this 'to . mean approval "" only of his recommendation' to consult a solicitor, and not to ' imply ' nn instruction to 'institute proceedings at once. The . next ho knew was that the explosion had occurred. He did not know that the Department had consulted a solicitor, on whose' advice they had dropped the prosecution, because, that, advice, was that a prosecution could, not .succeed. In view of. these circumstances lie would nsk the House whether tlio suggestions, made against 'him wore justified. He had been asked in tlio Houso wlietlierhe had ordered a prosecution, hut while the • matter, wns still sub judieo he had refrained from saying 'anything. ' . This line-of condtict ho had always followed, and to refuse to prejudico a case that . was' sub judice oven to clear himself from imputation. Other members had not.been so careful. , ' Even Mr. Bennio had not advised the uso of Bafety lamps. And if Mr. Rood thought that, danger in the.'mine was so imminent as he afterwards snid he thought, tlion lie sliould have' written a very different letter from that which • lie did write on receipt of Mr. Binnie's report.' Nor' could ho understand. Mr. • Reed dropping tho prosecution because

the advice He received from the solicitor was adverse. That fault could not be attributed to the Minister of Mines. The facts bo far as they had been made clear were that Mr.' Heed knew nothing about gas in the Huritly mine until ho learned it about Christmas timo from Huntly miners visiting the mines court at the Auckland Exhibition; of which Mr. Reed was in charge. Evon when he (Mr. • Fraser) - roceived tho memorandum from the Undor-Secretary of the Department, ho apprehended no danger, but he wished to have things put on a more footing, and .that was why lie Lad written on the' memorandum tho word •"Approved.'' •

No Influence at Work. iHe thought lie had . shown to fairminded moij in the House that he had not kept back ,the Bill in the two previous years in order to please tho mineowners. He, had been influenced by them ;; no t at all 1 , oxcopt ■ that 1 ho had gathered from them that.they opposed, the JBill, and that he supposed that op-' position on their behaii would bo orforcd to the Bill in the House. Added, to this, he had no thought of immediate danger. That did not occur /to him until the middle of August, when lie read the letters on the Departmental file from Mr. Bonnie, and Mr.- Eeed, and ho had', put-the word "Approved" on the Under-Secretary's memorandum: By doing that he' considered that ho had_ done enough to ensure proper steps .being taken to enjuro safety. • • In that, .apparently,. he was mistaken,; and in .'justice to tho. Under-Secretary ,it was' faiwto state that the text of the memo-1 randum left, it open to doubt of, what i exactly he had approved.: , He did not blame.the Under-Secretary,, becauso ho did not wish to shelter himself behind anyone. '■ In conclusion:: lie expressed Ins gratification with -tne .evidehco of the miners and the mine-owners: beforo th 6 - Committee. .It had : beeir freely: and frankly given, and it was a, pleasure'.to.sit in. the. Committeo'and near ■itl. "..v.: ' ■.

•'I have been asked,"- said Mr. Fraser, "whether, in view of the report of. the Huntly,.Commission, ■ I had. tgkenany. proceedings against, thevmino manager, ■ Mr.-: Fletcher.'. . Now, I think that is . a ,previous: I may say this, ■tliatvl, wasstruck by the remarks;of fiho-Commission, and I have; submitted them to the Crown Law Officers, whoso duty- it'will bo to advise me on the subject. I don't think I can. say more than/ that. If the Crown Law Office ■ advises mo to ,take certain steps,'those-' steps will bo taken."

The Bill'of 1912. Mr T M \YILFORD,;-(Hutt) "said that .lie . had traoed the history of the 1912 Bill from .Parliamentary records, and proposed to put it on record. Ho pointed out that in February and.March 1912, burnings were reported from ihe Taupiri Extended Mine. A deputation bf mine-owners waited on the Minister in November, 1912j in private, and discussed'the Bill, .which had: previously, been, set down-ias No. 2 oil the. Order • Paperi The Minister said that their objections did . not weigh with liim, but, what happened? The, deputation, . was received from the mine-owners, and the Bill rapidly receded on the Order Paper. The Minister-told 'the', deputation: that the Bill would be> ; seen' through, but it never' appeared'-again. /.'-It was not 'brought on in. 1912, or 1913,' and if- it had been brought on in 1912.t1ie disaster could never have occurred. ' Ho pointed .out that in the Bill introduced by the Minister in 1912 a clause provided that safety lamps would have.had to be used, in the mine. ■ In the;: Bill they had that night, the same' clause -was . introduced.' The honourable;gentleman made a statement that August 15 was tho firsttime ho had heard of explosions. Mr. AVilford the-honourable'' member to turn up liisi files; and lie would*find ,that' he heard ofs the explosions from a letter dated- June -27, 1914, when -Mr. 'Reed wrot-e-to that effect'to' the Under-Sccre--tary. ' If he had power to-deal with' thomine, managers tnenj why did. he not do it? ' 'Explosions" were ' brought -'to ■ his notice on July 2, and'the Minister must have known that every explosion might havo'caused'a holocaust.' ' After ho had met-the deputation of 'mine-owners lie lost interest; in the.; Bill,. and not' a step •was made till this, year.;. .Ho had: promised to go on with the Bill again in 1913; He (Mr. Wilford) asked wily had that Bill been dropped.- He : charged- the Government with negligence in not'going on with it, because tho Department was frequently notified; that explosions had taken place iii , tlie .Taupiri coal mines. After tno disaster at Hunt-' ly the Under-Secretary, .in,' the; course of. a, letter, said: that, Mr. Bonnie's fears wero well grounded.

•Beforo tho Commission. ■:■■-..1 Air. Wilford referred to the, inquest which took place before the: Coroner at: Huntly,- . after '; the I. disaster.. The, , ver-. . diet- .given was .-the 'only one. -possible on .the evidence,'but when the' commission sat, and Mr; Reed came forward, he gave evidence 'that entirely altered the complexion of affairs. • Immediately there was a different feeling,as far as ' the.' commission was' <' concerned,■'■' and when Mr. Bonnie went. into tho box Mr.-: Mscassey : (tho Crown ! Sol icitor) asked him if ho had even said: that the mine was dangerous,' and ;he' had replied that he.-ladl, He (Mr." .Wilford); con-.' tended that it was no use - the Minister saying that,. Clause '58 of the Act. gave the inspector poweir to:take: action, forMr. Bennio pointed out that when an inspector had closed a mine on the West Ccast he lost his. job.: , : Mr.-Wilford continued; and said that it was only by the good fortune of Providence that 160 men were .not killed, instead of. 43. The fourteen charges brought by the miners against the mine-owners had been found to be true. The first charge was' that they knew that, gas explosions had taken place, owing to the use of. naked lights,-and that •was .proved by the evidence before tlio. Commission. Mr. Wilford was not ablo to :finish his speech, and he said he would take the opportunity on tlie third reading. X..,,.;..":'. - r

- Mr. Russell's; Suggestion. I Mf.'.G; W. RUSSELL' (Avon) said that the' Government apparently did not t onsider'the lack of time in which to 'pass the Bill now, for'they were asking r /ho House to pass it two days. I'd ere :ho end of the session, whereas-in.]9l3 '''ei' had considered that there, was n6t > fhcient tihie. V ; And the House - had en in session four months before the .'nko occurred. Why the delay .111 ;~r(.uucmg the Bill, when' it cottldhivc jcen lain before tho Houso 011 the fijst day of the session? If this session the. Minister had .introduced the tj'll in July or .August there'could have .been 110 suspicion resting on the Government, that they did. not intend, to, go on with the Bill. But the disaster occurred on September 12, and the Bill was not introduced until October 1. A grave responsibility rested, upon the Government. ' Mr. Fraser: For .what? Mr. Russell :v I'believe that if ' the legislation introduced in 1912 had- been passed this disaster would not havo happened. He suggested that thefe bad been ulterior motives for holding back the Bill.

"Sad and Humiliating Spectacle." Tho Right Hon. W. F/IitASSEY said that, liko the last speaker, he knew very little about mining, but ho could Hot let some of his statements go unchallenged. "One of .the saddest and sorriest, and most humiliating spectacles,this Parliament has ever seen," he said, "is the spectaclo of honourable members trying to make political capital out of the death of forty-three nf their fellow-citizens. Never until to-night-have I folt ashamed of being a member of tho Now Zealand Parliament, but I do to-night, after listening to tho speeches of the last two speakers. ..: Sir, no one could have listened to the clear, straightforward statement of

the Minister of Mines without feeling that that honourable gentleman was ab Bolutely blameless.''■

Nothing To Do With It. ' Both of the last two speakers,!he continued, nhad said that if the Goal Mines Bill had been passed this disaster would havo been averted, ' • _ Mr. M'Kcnzie: Nothing to do with jt. Mr. Ma6sey: There is the statement of.-an honest man on.'the other side of the Houso, and a man who knows something about it. It would not have made li bit of difference. I call him ;as my first witness. Tho, fact was;, said Mr. Massey, that amp!o provision'exists in the present law-to ensure, safety. The Inspector of Mines had power-to with-, draw the men. from tho mine. ', ; Mr. Robertson: 'And pimish the men. ■i'.Mi'. M'assey: Is it'punishing the men to remove the men from, a dangerous mine?' ' • Mr. Robertson: It is depriving 'themof employment. _ , . . . /Mr. Massey said that the miners also looked upon it as a hardship to have to-use safety; lamps. He argued again that Hie Act now on the Statute Book lVas sufficient 1 - to' ensure'the safety of the men. . Mr.- .Isitt: Then why.-the necessity for tlie present Bdl? Mr. Ma-ssey: It is needed for other .purposes. After reviewing the evidence, be s said- that- it was his opinion that romebody ought to be tried for manslaughter.for the business., _ - Mr.'Webb: You might be tried your-, self. . Mr. Massey: Will tho honourable momber repeat that? - Mr. -Webb: You might bo on trial nlongi witlf the'rest; . . Mr. Speaker:. The honourable ber must withdraw,; that statement >t. once,, and express; regret . for having _ made it.' That is not a.^statement ; -to' make on a serious question 'like'this. '! ; The-.liOnourable, member must withdraw ti'id express regret at once, and without any comments. ■' '* : Mr. Wehb (hesitating): Without any comments?. Very well,' I withdraw. I can have-my say afterwards.- " Mr. Speaker: The honourable memjjer must express regret. ; ■ ■ Mr. Webb: I express regret. ; Mr. Massey: 01 course I accept that Mr. Speaker. ■ Safety. Presumed. , ; ■ Hd went on' to point out that one of. .the ' men "lost . -in -the mine was Mr. •Bennie's'brother-in-law, and : it could . be assumed that if, Mr. Bonnie, feared for the safety: of the men he would have given-his biother-in-law some hint, some warning. :Must it not be assumed - th'at-, Mr. Benn'ie thought 'i;Jie "mine was safe?. :.'... ' > •. Mr. Wilford: What about all these explosions?. . Mr. Massey: All small.--. : Mr; M'Kenzie-. Pockets.

Mr. Massey: In point of fact you get these .' small; explosions:, in every mine. You even get them in quartz mines. In view; of alii the. circumstances, he continued, neither v Mr.' Bennie nor Mr. Reed had come out of the affair well.

"Dastardly Things. I .' Tho Bill would have certainly been brought forward,last year but l'or the .obstruction that, took'place. Mr. Isitt: And tho'.owners' deputation.'.;. •- Mr. Massey: The owners' deputation -had nothing to do with' it.V Anyone who knows the Minister of . Mines knows that he is not to: be influenckl;in that way.' Ais a matter-'of, fact.-1 saw. one of the owners aftor, the deputation, and he was vory - dissatisfied. Ho said that-, ; theyhad been able to: make ho impression,. Mr. Massey. repeated that theßiil would hiive. been'. passed- but for the obstruction, . "I; say, and I:6peak ,of : what .1. know, thati'it, : was owing ito.-L.the-. delay arid.obstructions in-.1913.-that"the:-Bill\

was not dealt; with, in .that'-year." - By' nil extraordinary coincidence, he.-, cpntiuued,, the .two Mining-Bills'wore on the ;table -iri.'the .Cabinet room for ,the', information iof;'Ministers ; when' the« accident tookVplace/'- Eeferriiig to' tho. statements that had - been made about 1 the Government 'in. connection- with 'tiie; disaster, lie .said: -' -I a' shoxrld_-;like;";'to. .test'■: the opinioiv. of thS.LWoCourtiS with "regard; o some,, of :',tho'."thiugs 'that. r hive ; been said. . .' 1 ;'v fllie - attempt to ; make' political capital:' out of this 'is amongst ;tlie: most dastardly. things ;I have ever hoard ol.'' ■:. '.

- Not An Urgent Matter. ■ Tho Hon.. 11. M'KENZlE'(Motueka) said that the mining laws in New' Zealand were just as tar forward.as.those iu Belgium, ;'where; the: best- 1 laws,' as regarding the .'safety'. of . life, : existed. At the same time, certain'. precautions could be taken, to prevent accidents, which, would' -occur, underany conditions. • As' far as'. tho Bill yeiit, he complimented ~ the Minister,-;.... but the .whole matter,;' heksaid, should be . considered'; calmly,.say next , session'; when they, were not so excited. ; Mr. H. POLAND' (Ohinemuri) said that, the report, of. the .'Commission' clearly showed,that in .order to prevent.' ■future accidents'/, ' certain... .provisions should be made; Therefore, in tho opinion of ths Commission,':. the provisions prevailing > before . the .accident were:iiot sufficient. 'He contended that there was plenty of time last session to have- put, the Bill, through, 'and the talk* of 't-he : stonewall carried no.weight. This year they • had had exactly ■ 'the. same • thing—no - reference to :the Bill, despite the fact that the miners' representatives .in the House were continually asking about it. The Government only produced the Bill after the .disaster. No comment was needed to show

the attitude the .Government had adopt,ed with regard.:to-the: measure. Now, in- every possible, way,, the Bill was providing for : the'-; comfort i and safety of the miners,., but .under' the circumstance's -it was impossible .to . give the Milliliter ,any credit.

Mr. V. 0. WEBB (Grey) said that he was going to hold every combination responsible', that bad kept the. Huntly miners from Organising, and so being in a position to thoroughly examine the mines. The Government had stood by and closed, their eyes to the tactics adopted by the new union, in conjunction with the company. . To-day the workers at Huntly we're afraid to speak, owing to feaj of-victimisation. Not a man could open his mouth against: the compdny. If the Prime Minister knew of the conditions existing prior to tho disaster, then he was just-as responsible as any man in-the country. (Left sitting.)