A SIX DAYS' WEEK

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 112, 7 November 1912, Page 2

A SIX DAYS' WEEK

DISCUSSION IN PARLIAMENT " TALKED OUT." Considerable time was spent by the House of Representatives yesterday afternoon in discussing the question of whether tho Government should advance the Sliopd and Offices) Amendment Bill, which proposed to give a six-days' week for restaurant and hotel employees. >tr. Payne said that the request of the Employees would reduce the working week "by only two hours' — from sixty-two to sixty. The Premier, in his decision to defer the Bill, was acting for vested interests in preference to workers who had a just grievance. Mr. Atmoro declared that the Labour Bills Committee was practically unanimous in favour of the Bill. Parliament should stand for the principle that every man and woman in New Zealand v was entitled to one day's rest a week. There was hardly a man who would work his horse seven days a week, and surely human beings should be treated as kindly as the dumb animals. Mr. Robertson remarked that the Bill j had been under discussion since 1909. ' The Hon. F. M. B. Fisher i Since 1907. Mr. Eobertson added that evidence had been taken previously, and it was on record in the Journals of the House. The theory that further evidence should be called, in addition to the amount taken recently, was only a subterfuge by opponents of the Bill to block it. If the. Premier went on with the Bill he would be commended throughout the country. Mr. J> V. Brown said he was sorry that the Premier could not see his Way clear to go through this session. The Bill did not go,far enough; it should ap- ' ply also to boardinghouses. Farm labourers, nurses in hospitals, ahd policemen should also have a weekly day of "rest. _ ' Mr. Hindmarah remarked that all new legislation could be indefinitely delayed if progress was to be stopped till all objectors had an opportunity to give evidence. Parliament had to assume some responsibility and sot allow outside objectors to prevail. , He thought the Mirlister for Marine would spring to the front and not be a fair-weather sailor. Mr. Fisher: The debate is not over yet. Mr. Hindmarsh moved an amendment that the committal of the Bill should be an order of the day for 5 p.m. ' Mr. Poland reminded the House that the vast majority of workers got not only on* complete day of rest but an additional half-holiday. € The Hon. F. M. B. Fisher, said he first introduced the Bill in 1907, and it had been brought in during every session since. The Bill had been kept under by the previous Administration. The evidence of hotelkeepers had not changed since 1907. The Hon. J. A. Millar had described the Bill as a piece of class legislation, but the speaker differed from the late Minister. Mr. Fisher added that his impression from communications with Messrs. Veitch and Eobertson was that they agreed that the introduction of the Bill as a Government measure (even if not passed this session) would be a great step in advance. Mr. Veitch questioned the accuracy of this statement. The Minister said that the Prime Minister had given a pledge to allow objectors sufficient time to give evidence. Mr. Fisher gave an opinion that this attitude was fair. He complained that when he had charge of the Bill in previous years he got no support from Oppositionists, who now supported it. More progress had been made with . the Bill during the past three weeks, than during the previous five years. The Prime Minister had promised to have the Bill passed next year; the passage was in sight. (Ironical laughter from the Opposition.) He wanted to know what possibility there was of putting the Bill through this session? Did the Opposition contend that the Bill did not apply to private hotels and boardinghouses? He would not like to 'say how long it would take to get such a Bill through committee. It would be reintroduced early next session and ample opportunity given for taking evidence.' NO BREACH OF FAITH. The Hon. W. F. Massey said that, judging by the length of the debate,' members were in no hurry to bring the Bession to an end. (Hear, hear.) He denied that he had ever given an undertaking that he would place the Bill on the Statute Book this session-^-in fact, he had suggested to a deputation a doubt that he would bo able to deal with the Bill in any way this session. He had done what he could to expedite the progress of the Bill, but. there was a distinct understanding that the was not pledged to place the Bill on the Statute Book this session. The BiU did not stop at hotels; it included .private hotels and" boardinghouses. He believed that when the Bill did eventually go on the Statute Book some exemption would have to'*be made 'to meet, the cases of the smaller establishments. Next session he. would bring down a comprehensive • Shops and Offices BiU, containing the provisions included in tho measure under discussion, and full provision would . be made for the taking of evidence before the Labour Bills Committee. Sir Joseph Ward warned the Pfemter about tho danger of discriminating between city and country hotels. As Mr. Massey had given a pledge about the hearing of evidence it would be only honourable for the House to allow him to keep his promise. The Hon. A. L. Herdman submitted tbat the Arbitration Court was the proper tribunal to settle the working conditions of the employees in question. | Mr. Bradney said that voluminous evidence was taken by the committee. In reply to Mr. Okey's remarks he eaid that it was on that member's motion that the report was presented to the House. Mr. Anderson deplored the fact that Mr. hindmarsh would not withdraw his i amendment. He was in sympathy with the Bill but cognisance should be taken oi tho • fact 1 that the Bill could not be proceeded with until full evidence had been token. , Mr. Pt'arce, pointed out that dairy farmers and employees had to work seven days a week and nothing was said about v. The Bill was talked out, the debate being coropwlsorily ended at 5.30 p.m.