Committee objection, but he would like to point | out that he had not proposed this of his own motion, inasmuch as a meeting of the Shearers' Association discussed the Bill of last year, and approved of all its particulars, but sent up a resolution to the effect that they desired that provision for separate sleeping-accommodation for Chinese should be made. He held in his hands the letter of the secretary, from which he would quote :— "In his report to the Executive Council of the Shearers' and Labourers' Union one of our organizers suggests that provision should be made in your Shearers-Accommodation Bill for separate sleeping-apartments for Chinamen, as at some of the stations, especially in Otago, Chinamen and Europeans sleep in the same hut, which is considered decidedly unpleasant." He did not wish to raise any prejudice as against any race, but there was that feeling on the part of a number of Europeans; and, speaking of the class of Chinese who came to this colony, their habits were not such as ordinary Europeans would put up with, and it was not unreasonable to ask that, if they were employed, separate sleeping-accommodation should be provided. He was told that the instances were very few; and, if so, the clause would not press hardly. The honourable member for Waitemata, whom he thanked for sup porting the Bill, said it was desirable-and one or two other honourable members said the same thing that it should be specified in the Bill what was sufficient accommodation. He sheep. That was a reasonable suggestion, and deserving of consideration. The honourable member for Wairarapa, he was glad to find, cordially supported the general principle of the Bill. He entirely agreed with that honourable gentleman that, so far as the general run of sheepowners throughout the country were concerned, the Bill was not necessary, because in by far the larger number of instances the accommodation provided was what it ought to be. But there were a number of instances in which it was not what it ought to be, and it was necessary to provide in respect of these. He thanked the honourable gentleman for his promise to assist him in making the Bill perfect. He said there was nothing to provide against unreasonable demands on the part of the Inspector. He could not have sufficiently read the Bill, because he would see that if the Inspector made unreasonable demands the owner need not comply, but could decide to go before the Stipendiary Magistrate, and, if he found the Inspector's demand unreasonable, not only need he not sustain it, but he could cast the Inspector in costs. He again thanked the House for their favourable reception of the Bill. Bill read a second time. THRESHING-MACHINE OWNERS' Bill, which attempted to remedy a very large "Work includes any work or labour, whether skilled or unskilled, executed or done, or commenced to be executed or done, by any person of any occupation upon or in connection with (a.) The construction, decoration, alteration, or repair of any building, or other structure upon land; or had thought over the matter very carefully, "(b.) The development or working of any mine, quarry, sandpit, drain, embankment, or other excavation in or upon any land; or "(c.) The placing, fixing, or erection of any materials, or of any plant or machinery, used or intended to be used for any of the purposes aforesaid; or 46 (d.) The alteration or improvement of any chattel: and shall include the supply of material used or brought on the premises to be used in connection with the work." Curiously enough, those who drafted the Bill, and the House which passed it, never thought of the persons who had to thresh corn, whose interest, therefore, was not protected in the same way as that of all other classes of workers. That protection ought to be extended to them, almost more than to any others, he would show the House. He came from an agricultural part of the country, where the principal interest was in grain-growing, and he spoke of what he knew. During the last two or three years a large number of farmers who went in for graingrowing had, unfortunately, owing to bad harvests, to go to their merchants to get advances upon agricultural lien. Persons who had threshing-machines were not generally men who took the trouble to find out what farmers had liens on their crops. The merchant who had the lien waited until the corn was marketable, and then enforced the lien; and, owing to the defect in the Act, the unfortunate machineowner who did the threshing was completely left in the lurch. He did not think that was the intention of the Legislature, and by this Bill he proposed to stop the unintentional gap. He had drafted a Bill to meet the case last year, which was submitted to the Labour Bills Committee, and to the Minister of Labour, who approved of its principle, and, although it was late in the session and he had very much larger matters to attend to, gave notice of the Bill; but it unfortunately did not reach its second reading. During the recess he had consulted a number of farmers and threshing-machine owners, and had amended the Bill in various particulars. Under the Bill of last year, it was proposed that a lien should exist in favour of the person who threshed the corn over the grain threshed by him, but there was no limitation as to quantity, and it was pointed out that that was not fair, and it was therefore now suggested that the person who threshed out the corn should have a lien over so much of it only as would at the ordinary, market price suffice to cover the cost of threshing; that during the time it was in his possession he should be responsible that it should be kept in proper condition, so that the owner should not be injured. He need only add that his attention was first called to the matter by a gentleman connected with one of the principal mercantile institutions in the colony; and he happened to have in his hand a letter from him, a portion of which was to the effect that he had seen a copy of the Bill, and had shown it to a large number of machine-owners, and that it covered exactly what they required. He had also a letter from a gentleman in Geraldine, who said,— "Allow me to thank you for the Bill you are bringing forward to secure threshing-mill owners against rents and liens. . Please do what you can to get it passed, for the Workmen's Wages Act operates very unfairly unless the millowners are secured against landlords and lienholders. We have had a little experience of its unfair operation this last threshing season, for the grain is of no benefit to any one until threshed." He hoped the House would affirm the principle of the Bill, and, if amendments were found to be required in Committee, he would be glad to accept them in any direction that would make it more workable. Mr. McLACHLAN had much pleasure in supporting the second reading of this Bill. He did so because he had been engaged as the owner of a threshing-machine for a certain number of years, and he knew there were frequently hardships experienced by such machine-owners in consequence of the custom which obtained in his part of the country of farmers giving liens over their grain; and it was not always convenient for the machine-owner to look up the Gazette to see who had liens over their crops. After he had provided the machinery, coal, and labour to thresh the grain, and had had it put into sacks, it was sometimes carted off by the person who had a lien over the crops, and the threshing-machine owner had to whistle for his money. This was not an ordinary debt: it was not only a man's own labour that was involved, but he had to employ labour, and a very small percentage of the profit was actually his. He it was who rendered the grain of any value to the lienee. It was of no value while it was in the straw; and it was only threshing which rendered it of any value. He thought the mover of the second reading had explained the Bill sufficiently, and he thought the common-sense of honourable members would approve of the desirableness of such a measure. Mr. FLATMAN had very much pleasure in rising to support this Bill. The honourable member for Ashburton and the honourable member for Waitaki had shown why such a Bill was necessary. There was one thing which he would point out in it which he thought was a defect. The Bill said, "and, if the said sum be not paid within thirty days from the completion of the work, may sell the grain so retained." He maintained that thirty days was too long for a threshing-machine owner to be responsible for the safe-keeping of the grain. He thought "fourteen days" ought to be substituted for "thirty days." In cases where it was necessary that a man should take charge of the grain after he had threshed it, they might safely say that it was a bad case, and the sooner it was wound up the better. He thought fourteen days was quite long enough for a man to have charge of the grain. Mr. BUDDO, in rising to support this Bill, might remind honourable members, as had been stated by the honourable member for Ashburton, that this was no ordinary debt. The threshing of a thousand bushels of grain would be found to figure out to only about 30 per cent. to the machine-owner. All the 70 per cent. went in wages, and the other 30 per cent. was taken up in providing a sinking fund to replace the machine at from ten to twelve years from the time the machine was bought. The ordinary threshing - plant used in Canterbury and Otago costs about £1,000 complete, and therefore it would be seen that a very small percentage accrued to the threshingmachine owner, after paying all expenses and providing for a sinking fund. No doubt, in Committee, clause 3 would require amend ment. It seemed somewhat arbitrary that at the end of thirty days the machine- owner should be put in the position of having to sell the grain for the recovery of his money. Possibly amendments would be proposed in Committee, and he thought he would propose an amendment in the direction of making the buyer responsible for the cost of threshing, and that the lienee should be obliged to pay the threshing account before he removed the grain from the paddock. He thought that would simplify matters. The machine-owner was fully engaged all day, and often had to employ the nights by candle-light in repairing the machine for the next day, and he had no time to devote to bailiff duties in taking possession of the grain. He had much pleasure in supporting the main principle of the Bill. Mr. BUICK said this Bill was a very short one, but, so far as he could see, it was none the worse for that. It was an exceedingly good Bill, and, so far as he was concerned, it would receive his unqualified support. The Bill was calculated to relieve a large class of working-men who had to work late hours and undergo great expense in following their calling. In his own district there were a large number of people interested in this particular line of business, and he had known many cases of great hardship where men who had undertaken to thresh corn for farmers had had to employ men, and buy all sorts of necessary plant, and, after they had threshed the grain and made it ready for the market, were not paid any money for their work. Seeing that the grain had to go through the machine before it could be made a marketable commodity, it was only right and just that those who made the grain a marketable commodity should be paid before any one else. Of course, there were a number of Committee objections to the Bill, but these might fairly be left till the Bill reached the Committee stage. He would not trouble the House with his opinions on these objections at the present moment. All he would say was that the principle of the Bill was right, and the measure was the natural sequence of legislation which had been passed in that House some years ago. For that reason he thought the Bill should be passed. Mr. McNAB, like those honourable members who had preceded him, intended to support the second reading of the Bill. There were, however, one or two points which he would like to mention. In clause 3 there was a provision that the contractor should be entitled to retain possession of so much of the grain threshed by him as at the then fair average market value of grain of like quality would represent the sum due to such contractor. There was no actual definition given of what was the meaning of "retaining possession." Did it mean that the contractor had to take along with him to his next contract sufficient grain to represent the indebtedness; or did it mean that, while the grain remained in the stack, or in the barn, there was to be attached to it a lien for the amount of the indebtedness of the farmer to him? He thought that ought to be clearly Mr. Buddo specified, because, if it were not so specified, then there was sure to be endless litigation in the future. If it meant that the contractor should retain possession of the corn, either by putting it directly under his control or by putting some person in charge of it, then it was not sufficient to say that after the grain had been sold the contractor should be entitled to deduct the costs of the sale, because there would be a considerable amount of costs incidental to the retention and the possession. He would like to see the clause altered so that the contractor should be able to establish his position while leaving the grain in the field in which it was threshed, and that all the costs incidental to the whole of the surrounding circumstances should be retained by him after he had sold the grain. With these few alterations, he thought the Bill would be a very workable measure. He thoroughly approved of the spirit of the measure, and of the manner in which it had been brought forward. Mr. PIRANI said, while he intended to support this Bill, he thought the provisions of the be made to include such work as grass-seedLiens Act might go further, that they might cutting. They found, in his district, a very great flaw in the Act of 1892. Men took contracts for grass-seed-cutting, and were unable and he would endeavour, in Committee, to do to have a lien on the product of their work; something in that direction. There was also another want in the working of the Lien Act, and that was, of some way of avoiding the very heavy legal expenses men were put to when they endeavoured to get wages owing to them under the Workmen's Lien Act. time would come, and that very shortly, when He thought the the Government would have to appoint some one in each district as Public Prosecutor,-some lawyer if they liked,—and fix the rate of charges for services rendered under such Acts as the Workmen's Lien Act. He thought something of that sort would be a wonderful improvement in the administration of those Acts, although, undoubtedly, it might be unpopular with the legal gentlemen, whose profits would thus be reduced. Major STEWARD had very little to say in reply, except to thank honourable gentlemen for what they had said in support of the Bill. With regard to the suggestion of the honourable member for Palmerston in reference to grassseed, if the honourable gentleman looked at the interpretation clause he would find that it included all seeds of whatever kind. The honourable member for Pareora suggested that the time during which owners of threshingmachines should be entitled to hold grain should be fourteen days instead of thirty days. That was a matter which could be settled in Committee. It appeared to him that the House generally agreed that a measure in the direction he had indicated was required, and he would be prepared to favourably consider any reasonable amendments or suggestions that might be made in Committee. Bill read a second time. EMPLOYERS' PRIVATE BENEFIT SOCIETY BILL. Mr. MILLAR, in moving the second reading of this Bill, might say at the outset that he only intended to ask the House to agree to the second reading, and, if that were done, he would ask that the measure should be referred to the Labour Bills Committee. He did that partly because of the late hour at which the Bill had been distributed, and partly so that any employer who had one of these benefit societies in existence might be given an opportunity of giving evidence before the Labour Bills Committee should he desire to do so. A Bill somewhat similar to the present measure had been twice introduced into the House by Sir George Grey, but, for some reason or another, it had never got beyond the second reading. It might be necessary to inform honourable members, who, perhaps, were not aware of it, that employers' private benefit societies were growing up all over the country; and it was highly necessary, in the interest of existing friendly societies, that some restrictions should be placed on these private benefit societies. It was with this object the Bill had been introduced. He might state the order of running these societies. An employer, immediately he took the notion into his head of starting one of these societies, sent out instructions to the whole of the employés that they must join this if they desired to keep their employment. The next condition was that the rules were so framed as to give the employer absolute control over the whole of the money, and he might dismiss men at any time and retain the funds they had paid in. This assertion could easily be proved by a perusal of the rules of some of these benefit societies. Now, he thought honourable members would agree that in any contract between employers and employés the only thing that should be considered was the amount of work the employer demanded from the servants, and the amount of wages the servants demanded from the employer. He, for one, maintained that a man went beyond the functions of an employer when he attached a condition foreign to the employment altogether. This Bill dealt with this matter, and it was, as he had said, highly necessary, owing to the fact that in many of these benefit societies there were men who would otherwise join ordinary friendly societies, but were deterred from doing so by being compelled to join these societies when their wages would not permit of their paying to two societies, and therefore men who would join existing friendly societies were prevented from so doing. Then, another evil arising was that many members of friendly societies were forced to leave their friendly societies by the fact that they were compelled to join the employer's society, because to join that was to them a matter of bread-and-butter, and, to join that, they must sacrifice the money they had paid into an existing friendly society. Then, another very serious matter in connection with private friendly societies was this: that friendly societies did not take any members after the age VOL. LXXXIII.—36. of forty; and a man might have been for three or four years employed, and then, shortly after he had attained the age of forty, he might be dismissed from his employment, when he would be debarred from becoming a member of a friendly society. If honourable members would look through the Bill they would find that in section 3 he provided that every society now in existence should be registered under this Act, so that they might be under the same restrictions as were applied to existing friendly societies. The next section provided that every employé, no matter what position he might hold, should be eligible for membership, but no employé should be compelled under any conditions-the membership must be purely voluntary. That was not the case at present, but it was absolutely necessary, in the interests of liberty, that it should be the case. The next section, 5, simply provided that no employer should make membership in any society compulsory. That was with the same object to prevent any man being compelled to join or to lose his place. Section 6 provided for the management of the society by its members alone. Under the present conditions the management was almost entirely thrown into the hands of the employer, and the members had little or nothing to say with regard to it beyond paying their contributions. The next was simply a machinery clause, and laid down that the officers of a society should consist of a chairman, a vice-chairman, a secretary, a treasurer, and two trustees, and that the employer should be allowed to appoint one of the latter. Section 8 provided how the funds of the society were to be contributed, and the latter part of the clause provided that the employer should contribute 50 per cent. to the contributions of the employés. It had always been stated that these societies were all of a purely philanthropic nature,-that none but philanthropists created or promoted them. Well, all he had to say was this: that, if they were promoted by philanthropists and from philanthropic motives, this clause would exactly meet the case, and no one need object to anybody starting a benefit society if he were prepared to subsidise the men to the extent of 50 per cent., while those who had started societies from any other than philanthropic motives would, he thought, quietly allow them to die a natural death. Mr. BELL.-You do not allow them under section 3; you compel them to go on. Mr. MILLAR said there was nothing to prevent existing societies from dissolving within two months after the passing of the Act; they could dissolve and re-form their society, and then register it if they liked. Section 9 provided that every employer should deposit a certain sum of money in the name of the trustees £1 per head per member of the society. If honourable members would look into that section they would see that the money was simply a deposit, because all the interest that might accrue upon it was the property of the employer, and was to be paid to him annually; and, in the event of the society having to draw upon this fund when their ship Company's Friendly Society: that was the front of the offence. Well, he was expressing no views but what he had urged in last Parliament, when Mr. Mills held a seat in the House. He had held these views then, and he held them now. He thought it was a mistake on the part of the Union Company, or of any employer, to endeavour to get their men under control through creating such joint funds. The men did not like it, and the result was chronic discontent. Men should be allowed to act freely. He thought, however, it would have been better to have brought in a Bill to abolish societies of this sort altogether than to have gone about it in this indirect fashion. He was also opposed to these private friendly societies for the reasons urged by the honourable member for Chalmers. There was no doubt that establishing societies like the Oddfellows, Foresters, and others of that class was the most creditable step the working-men had taken in this colony or throughout the world in the way of making provision for their future. These so ordinary money was exhausted, the money was to be repaid out of the ordinary fund as soon as that fund had the amount necessary to its credit. The next section provided for the division of funds: "The funds of every such society shall, after the payment of all liabilities, and provision made for all ascertained liabilities, be divided pro ratá amongst all contributors." Section 12 gave to employers or employés, as the case might be, at the halfyearly or yearly meeting, power to dissolve the society. The next section provided that the accounts of the society should be audited by a competent accountant; and the next that the secretary, in addition to keeping the books, should also provide a balance-sheet, a copy of which, signed by the auditor, secretary, and employer, should be remitted to the Registrar of Friendly Societies. The next was a machinery clause with regard to the treasurer; and the next was with regard to trustees, and demanded that all moneys should be deposited in the Post-Office Savings-bank. This was done because he believed the Post-Office Savings-cieties were the expression of an earnest desire bank to be the safest. Clause 17 provided for rules that might be required for the working of the society, and section 18 that the Registrar should not register any society unless it complied strictly with this Act. Section 19 provided a penalty for any employer who attempted directly or indirectly to make membership a condition of employment. He thought if members studied the Bill they would find it hedged all round with absolute freedom for everybody concerned, and he felt certain that, if evidence were taken by the Committee, the Committee would be in favour of the Bill. He would not take up time longer, but would content himself with moving the second reading of the Bill. Mr. DUTHIE said this was a very interesting Bill. Professedly, it was to regulate the conduct of employers' benefit societies, and to provide for the management of those institutions; but really the object of the Bill-and he was going to support it because that was its object was to kill this class of semi-private benefit societies. In the clauses of this Bill there was a sort of false pretences right through; but he agreed with the real object of the Bill, and was of opinion that these hybrid societies were of no real benefit to either employer or employé. As a basis he held that every man who worked for wages was entitled to the free payment of those wages without deduction, however philanthropic in intent; and he did not think an employer was justified in adopting any contrivance by which he got a lien or thraldom over his workmen. It was a misuse of benevolence to endeavour thereby to get hold over the men, if even intended for their benefit. The relations between employers and employés at the present day were very strained and unsatisfactory indeed; but the difficulties were not to be solved by the establishment of little benefit societies of this sort. The Bill, he had no doubt, coming from the honourable member for Chalmers was more especially aimed at the Union SteamMr. Millar on the part of the men to provide for themselves, and they asked for no assistance from the employers, but practised true self-reliance in the endeavour to provide for themselves and their families. These benefit societies, he thought, should not be in any way interfered with; and the support given to such genuine societies must be weakened by the moneys reluctantly given to these private societies. These small societies were no good to the men, nor, ultimately, to the employers. For these reasons he should support the Bill, but he hoped that in the Labour Bills Committee the whole thing would be recast, and that the object of the Bill would be put in a straightforward way. Mr. BELL said he wished to protest against being called upon to approve of the principle of a Bill which had not been circulated more than two hours, and which had only just come into his hands. In the case of a local Bill this might easily happen, and one could forgive it; but in the case of a public Bill of this kind, unless the honourable gentleman could throw the blame upon the Government Printer, he thought he ought not to be permitted to pass the Bill in this way. With regard to the object the honourable member had in view, he was himself, perhaps, as much in accord with it as his honourable colleague for Wellington City, but he thought the honourable gentleman carried the matter a great deal too far. The Bill ought to have been confined to labourers or seamen; it ought not to be permitted to extend, as it might extend, to societies which had been formed in the cases of insurance companies, banks, and other institutions of that kind. It would be found, if the honourable gentleman insisted upon the present measure, that it would carry a good deal further than he intended, and that it would do ill and not good in a large number of cases. Clause 3 of the Act was not, in his opinion, properly drawn, and he thought the honourable gentleman would admit, if he considered it, that he had not given a society the option of withdrawal. |