SHOPS AND OFFICES.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 5668, 16 August 1905, Page 3

SHOPS AND OFFICES.

THE AMENDING BILL. CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE. OBJECTIONS TO THE MEASURE. Tho Shops and Offices Act Amendment Bill, as reported from tho Labour Bills Conimitteej was considered in con.mittoo of the House of Representatives hist night. Mr Massey heartily congratulated tho Labour Bills Committee upon tho work it had don© in connection with the bill, but it had been presented in such a form that it would take the proverbial Philadelphian lawyer to understand it. Clause 3, which had caused all tho trouble last session, had been struck out, but did anyono know' what had taken its place? In tho amending bill there was no provision made for early closing, but provision was made under which shops in certain cases must close at G o’clock. A wife who helped her husband after 6 p.m. must clear out (except the shopkeepers themselves fixed the hours of closing, as permitted by tho act). Ho wanted to know what they wore doing, and hoped that the mistakes of last session would not bo repeated. Mr Seddon said ho wanted to point out this: Unless this bill went througn. tin existing act remained the law of the land. He believed it was the general desire of tho Legislature to amend the law, and ho wanted members to approach tho bill in that spirit. Tho first thing they had to do was to repeal clause 3of tho previous act. Ho would, however, rather see clause 3 remain as it was than that there should bo any infringement in regard to what had been granted to shop assistants. There were people who would keep their assistants on till midnight unless it was legislated against. As the bill now stood, bo was not altogether in accord with it. Ho thought tho late hour upon which tho different shops should bo kept open should bo fixed by legislation.

Mr Massey: What about newspaper offices—tho Government Printing Office? The machinery there is kept going all night. I am only sorry that the bill hi its present form does not apply to tho employees of the State. It is an exceedingly crude bill. Mr Seddon: If the leader of the Opposition doesn’t know the difference between a factory and a shop, it is about time ho took a lesson in labour legislation. Tho Government has no shops—though (laughingly) we ought to have had some mutton shops in England long ago.

Mr Arnold, chairman of tho Labour' Bills Committee, said the bill as it now stood provided that a shop assistant was still to bo restricted to fifty-two hours a week. He thought the hill was quite clear. There might be one or two amendments necessary, but he was satisfied it was the best the Labour Bills Committee could do

Mr Barber said tho evidence placed before tho Labour Bills Committee was not acted upon, and the cqmmitteo, as a matter of fact, did not understand tho bill. The bill was going to cause just as much trouble throughout tho colony as tho measure of hist session. While it was necessary to repeal danse 3, there were other clauses to bo amended.

Mr Ell pointed out that with the exceptions named in the schedules shopkeepers with assistants would have to close at 6 o'clock at night unless they petitioned under clause 21 of the principal act, when they would bo entitled to keep their shops open until 10 o’clock, 11 o’clock, or midnight, and to keep their assistants on duty until the closing hour. Mr Bollard considered the hill a regular hotch-potch. Shop-assistants were sufficiently protected by having to work only fifty-two hours a week, or nine hours a day. As for tho exemptions, they were all right as far as they went, but he wanted to know why a shopkeeper or his wife should have to carry on tho business while the assistants wore allowed to go away. He would oppose tho bill at every stage. Mr Taylor said the one clear conclusion tho 'committee had arrived at was that rabbits were fish. Tho bill should bo sent Back to tho committee. Many members of the committee admitted that thev did not understand the bill. To pass the bill as at present drafted would moan another outcry. II clause 3 of the hill of last year had been amended by making reasonable exemptions, all, or at least most, of

rhe objections of Inst year would have been met. Tho bill was praetieaiiv n new bill, and under its provision.’ a --hoo’:o..qi.-r could woik his m:-: mu il 11 oYRck Tv iva- onlv a "D'-r-tir.!! of v.-arki::;; Quits, tx-'-iu.-- nu yiarumw a-sin-t Itßc liuur> v.u.s ."ivfji. Aii- Wiiiord v.-as f;;;-fit-'i thai the li'Mit ;< r wor!;i ! '°' Her* :w. i-t.iM'.s uai-s fixed. Eu’i' I.};-' r,vc-.d :o.;s of section 2! of t!ie principal act were revoked. ;!k- s]jo];-.is- is'.ant s votiid stop ivoak at a certain lime. Air Aiiken. a member of ibe Labour Bills Cot'i.nil too. said there wore a good many things in the bill that vould not he then* if proper coirdderir-ion ban been given to it. 110 advi-ed that it. should be sent hack to Die eomimtiee. Air Tanner was satishi*d Hie lull gave sc.r.i-facHon to no member of the House. Tlie evidence before the committee was mainly tainted with a desire on behalf of witnesses to endeavour to have provision made for their own advantage, rather than to help the committee* u> come to a conclusion on the general requirements. Air Dnthie said tho essential tilings to he defined wore, firstly, the fifty-two hours working limit for employees, and, secondly, the weekly luulhoiiday. That was all the House could do. It was impossible to draft a bill that would not create some hardship. Tho whole thing was complicated, and the only proper course open was to abolish the Shops and Olueas Act altogether, and define only the ha i-hoii-dav and tho hours of labour. Tlie bill was an officious interference. Tho whole flung should bo put into the fire and the House go on with useful legislation. Air Fannie considered that tno House should deal with the question on broad, general grounds, and provide for an appeal to tho Arbitration Court, enforcements of agreements between proprietors and assistants to be made on a three-fifths majority. Air Scddon said the question was one that should be loft to the shopkeepers to settle for themselves. Tlie bill was a good one when it first went from tho House of Representatives, but it had been ma-ngled in another place. Ho considered they should go back to the original bill, with a few amendments. Air James Allen asked where tho Premiers bill was. Tlie bill, ns reported from tlie Labour Bills Committee, was a very different measure. AA’here wore they ? Mr Seddon: I know where I am, and 1 know where you will be before we finish. I think the Council spoilt a very good bill by including clause 3. My proposal now is, repeal clause 3. Let us affirm that principle. AA’hat is the uso of asking mo where I am? Air Kirktrido said if tho Premier would giro, them a lead and propose in all seriousness the repeal of clause 3, they could finish the bill in half an hour.

Mr Fisher thought it was no use heating about tho bush. Not a member of tho House understood the bill. They were in tho position of tho learned philosopher who endeavoured to extract sunshine from a cucumber. "Why the House could not set to work and put tho bill into practical shape ho failed to understand. He would resist tho bill going back to the Labour Bills Committee. Ho concurred in Mr Duthic’s rerharks, Mr Seddon said he never intended that this bill should go to the committee. He knew what would happen. Thor© had been a waste of time. His original bill was simply one of four clauses, and the whole hill-was contained in clause 2, for tho repeal of clause 3 of last year’s act. The other clauses contained safeguards for the shop assistants, to prevent them being brought hack at all hours of tho night, and fixed 6 o’clock closing definitely, but when ho did put it there, ho considered that he would have to give way a little and modify tho bill. Ho complained that no assistance had been given him, and be advised tho House to go back to tho bill as he introduced it—let them get back to the position they were in when they sent last year’s bill up to tho Council. After an hour and three-quarters* debate, the short title of the bill was passed on tho voices. Clause 2, repealing clause 3 of the principal act, was also carried on the voices.

Very lengthy discussion took place on clause 3 (which the Labour Bills Committee recommended should be struck out), viz.: —Subject to the provisions of tho principal act amd to any award of tho Arbitration Court, a shop-assistant shall not bo employed in or about the shop or its business moro than fiftytwo hours in one week, or at any time after one o’clock in the afternoon on the statutory closing-day, or,after nine o’clock in the evening on Saturdays in districts where Saturday is not the closing day, or after six o’clock in the evening on any other working day. If any shop-assistant is employed at any work in connection with tho business of any shop later than half an hour after the time prescribed by this section, the employer commits an offence in respect of eacii shop-assistant so employed. . Numerous amendments wore suggested with the same object, to delete the words, "subject to any award of the Arbitration Court,” but all were lost on the voices. It was then moved by Mr Herrios that clause 3 should apply only to the four chief centres, which raised the old cry of town versus country.

Air Scddon asked tho committee to negative this amendment, and then he would withdraw clause 3 altogether. This was accordingly done, and Air Taylor inquired if the Premier intended now’ to rely on clause 4 of the original act, fixing tho hours of employment at fifty-two. Air Scddon replied in the affirmative.

Mr Massey moved an amendment that requisitions in writing from occupiers of .shops regarding the closing hours (clause 21 of the principal act) should bo determined by a three-Gftlis majority of tho occupiers m the district of any local authority. Jin Soddon said tho bare majority had worked very well, and there had been no complaints. Tho leader of the Opposition was attempting to make the bill unworkable. At 1 a.m. Mr Taylor said the House had done a good night’s work, and they ought to go home. He moved to report progress.—Lost bv 36 votes to 29. Jlr Massey’s amendment was carried by 36 votes to 28. Progress was then reported, and tho House adjourned.