A SPEECH OF OMISSIONS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2124, 5 July 1907, Page 2

A SPEECH OF OMISSIONS.

THE VIEWS OF A SOUTHERN MEMBER. In the course of an interview with reference to the work of Parliament, Mr W. Fraser, the member for Wakat’ipu, informed an Otago Daily. Times reporter that what he noticed particularly in connection with the Governor’s Sjieeeli were the omissions. For instance, there was no reference to any proposal to deal with the subject which for many a long year past had been discussed, namely, a proper system of local government. Tlifit was a, matter that would take almost a session by itself. Mayhap the Government considered it hail no time to deal with it in the present session, hut he certainly thought something should have been stated, in regard to it.

- „ Iteferring to the laud question, Mr 1< laser said that the proposal t-o deal r "'ti l the land question in the form » three Bills would virtually mean that there would be three sets of , speeches on the same subject, instead , °f one. Tlie subject matter of the three Hills would be found so f inex- ' tricably mixed that it would he impossible to refer to one without also treating of the others. This might prove to be contrary to the Standing Orders of the House, 'as a member speaking to one item on the Order l'aper was barred from speaking on others. Some curious complications Would in all probability arise. A n important matter that would come before the present Parliament would he a revision, in certain directions, of the labor laws. The Arbitration Act would require attention. The unfortunate affair, the slaughtermen's strike, was a case in point. A system of fining men for breaches of the Act, and of imprisoning those who did not pay their fine, could not bo said to be satisfactory. It seemed to him—lie had not gone fullv into the matter, hut speaking generally—that it would he advisable, before a union was recognised as such under the Arbitration Act, to make it imperative that it should give evidence of ability to meet fines, and. in the second place, that any unionist who might decline to he hound by the mandate of his union not to strike, but did so on his own initiative' should he compelled to retiro from the union. Ho thought the men should "he liable to be fined as at present: hut he disagreed with the alternative of imprisonment. A much better at ternative to non-payment of a fine would bo to make the ineligible to hr •‘-eken back into the union until fluff; 1 e was paid. They would thus lose a’J benefits of preference of employment under the Act. In the event of the union taking back men w>’< had been fined for a breach of tbAct before they had paid the fine < the union would, under such circum i stances, become liable, j

Of course, these wore only rouglsuggestions. The matter would re quire to be carefully worked out ir detail; but lliev at least indicated the manner in which the fines could be enforced without resorting to imprisonment.