PARLIAMENT

Waikato Times, Volume 119, Issue 19885, 14 May 1936, Page 7

PARLIAMENT

QUESTIONS ANSWERED. 4 .____ i MILK SUPPLIES FOR SCHOOLS. I STIMULATING FLAX iNDL'STIiY. ‘ _(l’rom our Parliamentary corresvondan‘! \\'ELLINGTON, \\‘ednesday. I .\linisteriai replies to GUCSHOHS “"1” tireulated and (iiscusswi in the House: of liepresentathes this sii‘ternoon. : “u is not proposed to legislate 10' prOVide [or a. compulsory umversai' holiday on Saturday.“ said the Prime! Minister, the Rt. Hon. .\I. J. SaYflSCvl in reply to Mr \\'. .\i. U. Denham (Gov- ‘ ernment—invercai'sill>. .\ir Savage! pointed out that provision was made in the industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill that the Arbl« tration Court should, when iixing at 40 the maximum \veckly working hours. endeavour to 11x the daily working hours so that no part of the working period tell on a Saturday. Replying to Mr .\. C. A. Sexton (ln- . dependant—Franklin) as to whether he would, when providing for a supply of milk (or children in country schools, make a similar provision for a supply or fruit. the Minister of Education. {a Hon. P. Fraser. replied: “it is the . in'entlon of the Government to orgalh I lso as soon as practicable a. supply of 3 milk for school-children (wherever iti is required). The Government ! further hopes by means or its general economic policy, particularly the increasing purchasing-power generally, I to increase the consumption of fruit . by both children and adults. The} importance of fruit as an article of diet for children is fully appreciated, I and the suggestion of the honourable member will be borne in mind.“ ‘ Reserve lank Notes. I Answering a (urther question by Mr I Sexton. the Minister of Finance. the lion. W. Nash, said: “It is not intended l to issue a new series of Reserve Bank notes in the near future, but it is proposed. when a change is made, to art permission for an engraving of tits Majesty‘s head to be included in the design for notes or all denominntions. “The Government has under consideration proposals for the stimulation of the llax industry by the introduc—tion of improved methods or treating the green test and by the installation of efficient textile machinery to produes wouipacks and other products equal in quality to similar products made from other libres,” said the Mirn later of industries and Commerce, the Hon. D. G. Sullivan. in reply to Mr T. D. Burnett (Opposition—Tsmuka). Mr Burnett had asked whether in View at the policy or the Government to imliose a levy of at least 4d per ibale on all wool in the interests of wool propaganda and investigation it was advisable to impose an additional impost at an to 6d per pack in the interests of the flex woolpack industry. The .\lin< later said it was not the intention oi the Government at the present time to increase the price or or iiax wooiDflcka to provide a lund as suggested.

' IN FAOTORIIS. DISCUSSION DI“ BILL. EFFEUT 0N DAIRY INDUSTRY. INCREASED COSTS PIIEDICTED. \\'ELLINUTON. Wednesday. The need for I drastlo overhaul of New Zealand‘s industrial laws was em—phasised by the Hon. H. 'l‘. Armstrong, Mlnlster of Labour, In mo\'lng the second reading or the Factorles Amendment 8111 In the House or Representatives today. Although It might be said that conv dltlons In New Zealand were better than In other countrles, said the .\llnlater. they were not anythlng like they should be. and could be. The tlme had arrlved when there should be some control over what were khown as “back yard" lactorles. These factorlea had been able to evade the law In Ihe past because two or more persons had to be ('IIIDIO}I'I| In a factory before it came \\'lthiu the scope or legislutlon. There was no reason why u factory of one should be exempt any more tlmu a factory of Inc.

Referring lo the provision in the: Bill relating to work done elsthere than in a factory. the Minister said that I In some cases i‘aclory owners gave, out work to be done in homes. ily do- I in; that the o\\ncrs were not subjectl to award conditions and could exploit l the position as much as thr-y wished. I n “as not proposed in abolish that“ class of work, but it \\us inirndrd to l Herclso control over \\ork done under ‘ toudl wnditiona. 1 Small Dairy Factories. 1 i The Minister stated that the exemp- ‘ tion of small dulry Factories from the provision in the i‘ut‘turics Amendmcnt Bill restricting employment in dairy {actories or rreumerics to six days ot’ the week is under considrrution. ilo said factories granted b'liL‘ll rxemption would be rcquiru-l to give their employees time of! (in full pus at the end of the season cquqult‘llt lo the cxlrn time workwL Mr Armstrong said no reasonable objection had been Lilwn to the six—day “ng 1n dulr) Lirlnrios, particularly in tlu‘ illrsrr onus. hut it hlui hm.“ pliilllt'tl out in him limt ihcrc “fluid ln- 5 ...lu iilliirull} iii the \\'n) or giving effort In the proposal so lnr .1» the suiullrr i-li'iul‘iq'n \\L-ru ronrurnrd. Theo? :innll l‘nrtnrivs did not unipluy gunmen: iidlilin‘ 1o rndillc a six-le)‘ week to by upvmtrd. nor \\ould it he practicable or |>ns.~il\lv for lhum to "euro nn Mira immi \\ln-n rrquirrd. ’l‘hr .\lmisirr sand hr h.ni dw'usaed the mall-'i' \\ith I‘rprescnmlirrs ol' the dairy rnl'iorirs. “no from the \\'nik.lin hnd polnird out in him ihnt the dulry Companies \\ero nu rompinlnmg on tho score 0! min-um: inii limt ihc Si.\ulliy week \\ns unnuritziiuir 11l Ihr small lactorirs, it tih‘)‘ \\rrc nlirvwl‘d to mark a seven-day \\l-ri: thr- sinuiirr i'zirtnr--195 “ere prepared to giu- lhc walnu—ion! of the extra limo \\‘ul‘kl‘d in limo off on full W! “l ”W Hill Ui' tin‘ season. An amendment alum; iimsc lint-9 was belng dl‘ni'it‘ll. Fume of tho «'ompeinil‘s \\.-re also ul‘ opinion that some :irz'unm‘nn'nls \\UUIKI have to be made for exr‘mpllon so far as the holiday prm‘isinns of the Bill remung to lJii‘isiillrl.‘ lid)’ and Bruin: Dly were conrerned. said Mr Arm« A gContlnued tn next column.)

strong. Irrespective of holidays cows had to be milked and the factories worked. The men would have to be compensated for work done on these days, and it was suggested this should be done by allowing time off. Six Days Impossible“l am pleased the Minister pro” poses to introduce an amendment dealing with hours of work in dairy tactories," said the tion. A. Hamilton (Opposition—\\’allacc), who followed Mr Armstrong in the debate. “As the clause stood originally we would have had to contest it very strenuously. in tSouthland and Otago there are '76 dairy factories, 33 of which have outiputs of less than 100 tons oi cheese annually. of those 33 there are it with annual outputs of under 60 tons. it. would be impossible for them to manage on a six-day week. “One man has told me that if the Bill went through as originally framed and if the 1931 wages were restored. 27 factories in the district would have to close. Where only one or two men are being employed in a factory with a small output it is almost impossible to bring on extra hands to provide for a six-day week." "Going Too Far." While admitting that in some respects the factory laws needed overhaul Mr Hamilton considered the Government was going too far. The Bill might go further than was really intended and prove irksome and diflicutl to factory people themselves. Along [with other Government measures it was bound to increase costs in New Zealand. Govermnent speakers were! inclined to say that they were not so much concerned with costs as with wages and conditions, but increased costs- meant increased tariits and a sort or tlnanrial roundabout which hL‘L‘llll‘tl to time no end. it (lid not appear that the Bill would assist in ipultim,r people into emplogmeni. The luntting out or ow-rlimc and reduction lin working hours might make the load itoo lll‘il\'§' [or some industries to carry. l g'l‘lu- liovernment would have to payi [some attrntion to the ability of Uomin- l tion industry to stand up to t'oreigul trompelition. ll .\lr liamillon referred to clause 'i of! [tho ltlll, which prohibits diSmissals ot' ‘t-mplowrs as it result of tho inlroduc- ‘ lilon ut‘ the ill-hour wrek. "We think {inc rluuse is unjust," he said. "and i\\r shall have to contest it." i .\s tln- iiill was drawn at present. Mir llamiiton continued. employees re— l quired to work on holidays would he‘ luliil tor the holiday and double time in t :uldlllou. That amounted to treble l time. t l (lm‘cl‘nnlt‘nt Voices: The Bill does‘ ‘uot say that. .\lr Hamilton: 11‘ the .\liulStor and the [mum's would say i: does not i should lie quill: sillistlc‘d. ; The Minister of Laliour. lion. 11, T Armstrong: You are quite right. They ’\\lll got tl‘cltlc time. “ Burden on Industry. ' 'l‘lu‘ ussrrlinn that rrrtxiin provisions ill “in l“.l\'lUl'i|'S‘ .\im‘lnluit’nl liltl would llll‘l'V'JsU rnsls to 1m uxlrnt greater tlmn some intiUStrit‘s could hear was llldilt‘ lly .\lr 5. ti. llttllnutt (imposition fiAUill'lle‘lllil‘t‘ll Ntli'lii,~ iir said one no“ rlntisr .tltlllt', that dealing \\ith the I|.t}lllt‘l|l oi" l-|L'lttl‘_\ \\orkrl's l‘or raytiiin sttitviior) holidays. would involve intlustr) in .in additional hurdcn of E'Jti.tlltlt a _war. .\lr lloltttnd protested against the inrrmsr m owi'iimr rules by .30 per runi. and pointed out that the \\'ingS t‘l.|ll>l‘>‘. \\‘uuld llll‘iill in some Cil>r‘> u” inrrmm- t-t' l'ui pi'r With for the \\'Ui'kt'l" .\ similar warning l‘rgardlng mtg [Lilli—3ol‘ ut' lilt'l'L'JM‘ll I'nsts “as “Jim”! liy _\lr \\‘. 11. l‘ol.~«tii lltlnposition_ >lrnli‘nr«i‘- ’l'hr Bill. hr said. mount :in :ultird turdrn on industry or it! ilt‘l' i‘l'lll. 50 {JP I|‘i \\.lfil‘s \\r‘l‘l‘ l‘lHlL‘t‘l‘ngd. My Poison said that Olll‘ (Il' tllt‘ Palm—:ni‘lllllill‘)' provisions ill the hill “33 [int “taunting for an increase of lot] pct" rru‘- in Hlt‘ nwz‘iinw rails mer the fil'thllcll') into for lmys and girls that imzltt he asked m rush time to do ('\ll'.l “ark. I'uit‘azrous wages invarimltl} meant outrageous prires. ‘ ‘lhe House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.