ANTI-SHOUTING REGULATIONS

Evening Post, Volume XCV, Issue 43, 19 February 1918, Page 8

ANTI-SHOUTING REGULATIONS

ALLEGED UNDUE HARSHNESS

DEPUTATION TO SIR FRANCIS BELL.

A deputation consisting of Mr. E. Kennedy, (secretary of the Hotel Workers' Union), and five members of the union, waited on Sir Francie Bell, AttorneyGeneral, this morning, in reference to anti-shouting regulations so far as they affect bai'-tenders. t Mr. Kennedy said although the deputation represented the local Hotel Workers' Union, they had the authority of the other Hotel Workers' of New Zealand 'to, 6peak on their behalf. There were close on 10,000 hotel, restaurant, _ and marble-bar workers in the Dominion, and including' other workers in these establishments the total really amounted to 13,000.' They wanted to enter a protest against the anti-shouting regulations —against the war regulations dealing with anti-shouting. They considered the regulations an unwarrantable interference with the social rights of the community, and also a direct infringement of the liberty of the subject. Mr. Kennedy proceeded to attack Parliament for passing such unusiial and drastic regulations. Sir Francis Bell: 1' want to hear your grievance against the regulations. Ido not want you to attack Parliament, in regard to the regulation*. Mr. Kennedy: When Parliament does .an unjust thing, and we consider generally that these regulation* are unjust • Sir Francis Bell • I put it to you that it is not very useful to put that before me. . Mr. Kennedy said he did not think that in any part.of the British Empire there could be found another piece of legislation similar to these regulations. The. regulations provided for two penalties for me one offsnee,- and/they did more; they prevented workei'6 convicted of an offence from working in jthat. industry in which they had been engaged; A person convicted could not be given employment in any one of the 1275 hotels in, New Zealand. Not only were such persons de-barred-"from earning their livelihood., in the bars, but they were forbidden to be given employment in hotels in any capacity whatever. Sir Francis Bell: Does not the Labour movement do that to a man who does not j comply with your rules? . Mr. Kennedy: Not to my knowledge. •'. Sir Francis Bell: It won't allow him to work with unionists, will.it . •■ „ Mr. Kennedy : Not to. my knowledge. | They do not 'bar a man getting employment in the industry somewhere; but these regulations are an absolute bar against employment. The regulations, continued Mr. Kennedy, carried a maximum penalty of £100, and prevented subsequent employment on any licensed premises. The regulations throw the. onus of proof on the defendant ' .Sir Francis. Bell: That is not without precedent; all the Customs Acts provide that.

Mr, Kennedy remarked that Mr. Justice Edwards drew attention to the fact that under the regulations, under the circumstances mentions! in a recent case before the Supreme Court, the defendaut was given no opportunity of bringing evidence in defence. The deputation asked that the maximum penalty be reduced from £100 to £10, and that the disqualification for employment be struck out of the regulations. The adoption of 6 o'clock closing of hotel bars had thrown large numbers of persons out of employment. The union had numbere of workers seeking employment, and. the union could not get places for them. . Sir Francis Bell: The hotels are very fortunate as compared with the refit of the community in having a surplus of •applications for employment.' ■In his general reply to the request of the deputation, the Minister said they would understand that he could not possibly answer, the "very elaborate indictment that Mr. Kennedy^ had presented without more consideration, at any rate; and he could only promise them that he would consider what had been said, and if he was satisfied that there was cause for the. statement that the regulations were unduly harsh, he would bring the matter before Cabinet, with a recommendation for their mitigation. He pointed out that a double penalty was not unprecedented. Under the Licensing Act there was not only- a fine on conviction in come cases, but also an endorsement of the license. .