CLOCK REPAIR HOBBYISTS

Evening Star, Issue 25895, 12 September 1946, Page 5

CLOCK REPAIR HOBBYISTS

PROTECTION SOUGHT BY CRAFT PROPOSED BILL TOO DRASTIC (Special) WELLINGTON, Sept. 12. An effort to secure legislation for the registration of' clock and watchmakers in New Zealand has failed, an adverse reporf? having been submitted to the House yesterday by the Public Petitions Committee on the petition from John Murrell, of New Lynn (president of the New Zealand Horologieal Institute) asking that legislative actiou be taken in this direction. The committee reported that it had no recommendation to make.

It was explained by the chairman of petition of J. Jeffries, of Christchurch, and 47 others, objecting to the terms of the Horologieal Institute petition. It was explained by the chairman of the committee (Mr Denham) that the Horologieal Institute submitted a proposed Bill for the registration of clock and watchmakers which, if it became law, would prevent any person engaging in this occupation unless lie was registered, having first passed an examination before a board of examiners. The petitioners claimed that it was a skilled occupation, but there was unfair competition from persons who made a hobby of repairing watches in their spare time, and that their business was heing undermined to the detriment of the public. The counter-petition did not object to registration, but protested against any law ■ which would prevent anyone else doing watchmaking. These petitioners pointed out that motor mechanics, accountants, and others were subject to registration, but this did not prevent other persons from doing the same kind of work. They also claimed that some returned servicemen were augmenting their pensions by watch repairing, and that the proposed Bill would be unfair to them. After evidence had been heard, both parties agreed to a conference in the hope of coming to a common understanding. Mr R. M. Macfarlane (Govt., Christchurch South), who had presented the counter-petition, said the evidence did not suggest that there was any public demand for registration. The powers proposed in the Bill were most drastic, and such as Parliament would hesitate to grant to any section of the community. He was hopeful that when the parties had conferred they would find a way of overcoming the difficulties, which at present related mainly to supplies. Mr W. J. Poison (Nat., Stratford) said that while he was not suggesting that all the principal petitioners wanted should be done, he could not understand the hesitation of a Government committee. Government Members: It is not a Government committee. Mr Poison replied that it had a Government majority, and the Government did not hesitate to allow sections of the community to get rights which transcended the rights of the community. He saw no reason for discouraging the petitioners in their desire to elevate their occupation. There were proposals in the institute’s Bill which were not fair to anybody. said Mr P. Carr (Nat., Auckland AVest). For instance, if a watchmaker .decided to go for a 12 months’ holiday, and came back to his home town, the Bill provided that he could not resume his occupation without getting his competitors’ permission to start 'again. • Mr T. C. Webb (Nat., Kaipara) said that the Bill certainly went further than he was prepared to go. It provided. not only for registration, but for the preventing of anyone else excepting those registered,after examination from doing any repair work. The committee’s report was adopted.