"BIG NOISE."

Auckland Star, Volume LXXI, Issue 206, 30 August 1940, Page 9

"BIG NOISE."

HOURS FOR SHOPS.

CLAUSE ATTACKED.

MR. SCHRAMM'S CRITICISM.

VTELLIXGT-OX, tliis day. A cUuse in the Statutes Amendment Bill pivin? the Oonrt of Arbitration power to fix the opening and dosing hour? of shc>ps on any ■working day in any s'ward relating to the employment of shop flss»:ants. provoked considerable from members of the Opposition in the House of Representatives' kte last nir.'.t and e.axJy thie morninc. One of the ocvernment members. Mr. N-hramn , .. joined in the attack on the da use, the main point of ■which was that power -was c-onferred on tbe Court to fix the closing hour* of shops at any time on any day. it wa* contended, invoked the possibility of interference with the weekly half-holiday by the Court.

Eventually, at the. f-ug/ge-tion of the Prime Minister, Mr. Fraser, the clause «as withdrawn with a vipv tt> its rtintrodncticin later in the session Jn a Shops and Offices Amendment BilL

Mr. Wilkinson (Independent. F.gniont • doubted whether a single, shopkeeper in the country knew a single word about ibe clause. It might have been ;.*ked for by the Labour unions. If that were eo. it would be only fair to cive the other tide an opportunity of discussing the matter.

Mr. Barnard (Government. Xapier) inquired whether, under the clause, the Court would have power to prevent -t-ores from being kept open on Saturday morning. In s-ection IT of the 1927 Amendment Act. which clause was re;>eaJed. there were *-ome significant words. One of the things the Court had lo pay re.jrard to was the convenience of i the public, and he warned to know whether that consideration, as .» result of the repeal, would be lost sight of by the Court. Demand For Clause, The Minister of Labour, Mr. WeLb. said his information was that a large section of shopkeepers in different towns had joined with their employees in making the request to the Government, that a clause of thi* nature should be inserted in the law. A number of shopkeepers had complained about unfair competition due to lack of uniformity in starting hours and, under the clause, the Court, after hearing evidence from both sides, would have p>wer to determine the hours of employment. There was no suggestion that the Court would have power to interfere with the half-holiday, or anything like that. The Minister assured the House that, if a* a result of the clause any real hardships developed, or it wu in any way abused, he would have no compunction about asking the House to have it amended. After Ihe Court had determined the question of jouns, there was power for a magistrate, on application, to review the position snd veto and over-rule the Courfs lecision.

Mr. Sclxamm euggested tlat tie ?oint of view of the general public should be represented to the Arbitration Court when awards were being sought. The Court would hare to administer the dau?e a* it was written. Mr. O'Brien (Government, Westland) said that the discussion appeared to be a. big noise about what was really a genuine attempt to give satisfaction to employee* and shopkeepers. He had never heard such ridiculous argument in Ms life as that put forward by the member for Auckland East. Defects in the B3L Mr. Schramm said it was the duty of every member to point out any defects in the bill, and it was the duty of every other member of the House, particularly those on his own eide, not adversely to criticise him, and make comparisons about hi* party loyalty. The clause gave power to the judge to close shops at any time daring any particular day. "That means that the judge can fix the weekly ialf-holiday," he said. If the Minister would give him an assurance that it would not be used for that purpose, then be would be satisfied. Mr. Fraser said his maul comment was that the House had been badly served by its committee*. It was for the House to decide what should be done. The Govfrnment did not want to foist legislation on anyone without tneee concerned, if they eared to do so, giving evidence. Mr. Wilkinson: That is what we want. Mr. Fra*er suggested that the clause be withdrawn ,and rentrodfleed in the Shops and Offices Bill when the House resumed. That would not mean that the Government was giving: away one inch of the principle involved. It would give those too cared to do so an opportunity to give evidence, but he would be much surprised if a single shopkeeper gave evidence. Minister's Surprufc Mr. Webb said that when he brought the clause down he did not imagine that there would be any opposition, but since members on both sides of the House had expressed the opinion that the clause should be reconsidered he was agreeable to the suggestion of the Prime Minister. A bill would be brought down later embodying the clause. It had been defin'tely promised and that promiee would je honoured.

Mr. CBrien, in a personal «plM»tioe, aeld that hie loyalty wm as good as Oβ loyalty of anybody else. The clause wae then withdraws.—(PW-■-Vinientary Beporter).