THE SMALL SHOPS

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10847, 12 March 1921, Page 9

THE SMALL SHOPS

AND SIX O’GLOGK CLOSING DEPUTATION TO MINISTER FOR LABOUR. THIS SESSION’S BILL. A deputation representing various shopkeepers’ associations waited upon the Minister for Labour yesterday and urged the repeal of the legislation passed last session compelling small shopkeepers to close at 6 p.m. Mr V. Potter, M.P., introduced the deputation, and there were also present Dr. Thacker, M.P., Mr C. E. Statham, M.P., and representatives from Auckland, Christchurch, and other places. Mr Braithvvaite (Auckland) instanced the case, of returned soldiers who had beenoassisted by the Repatriation Department, and pointed out the difficulty they would have in meeting their obligation®. There were about 50 such men affected in Auckland and suburbs, me quoted specific cases of heavy loss in receipts arising out of the amendment. In answer to the Minister he said that they knew nothing of the alteration until shortly before Christmas. There was no association in existence then. He assured the Minister that they were unacquainted with the proposals oil the subject contained in thjs bill introduced by Mr McCombs. It had been all the more severe on them as they had ordered goods without knowing that their hours of trade were to be drastically curtailed. He admitted that some of the shopkeepers engaged one on- two assistants, but they did not work them after hours. Many shopkeepers who traded in fruit, confectionery, etc., and who were not compelled to close at 6 p.m., were keeping under the counters their goods and selling after hours, thus interfering enormously with their trade. If ft was not possible to have the clause passed last session repealed during the present session, he asked that they should be allowed to revert back to the old hours and conditions of closing until such time as their appeal for the repeal of the present Act could be definitely settled one way or the other. AWKWARD FOR WORKING MEN. Mr Jones (Christchurch) drew attention to the difficulty which working men had in obtaining requirements when they reached home alter work. The Minister here stated that it might surprise, them to know that the clause was inserted largely at the instigation of the Labour unions. Mr Jones expressed the opinion that the Labour Party wanted to 'crash private enterprise and this was the thin end of the wedge. If combines were allowed to creep in they would send the small shopkeepers to the wall. Mr Howard, M.P., had stated to him that he thought

small shopkeepers were a good thing, but if the Labour Party made it a measure of their own to close sdfch shops at 6 o’clock he would have to follow them. In his own case he transacted the bulk of his trade between 0 p.m. and 8 p.m. SUFFERED ENORMOUS LOSS. Mr Eovvnes (Wellington) admitted that he was aware that it was proposed to close their shops at 6 p.m. by reason of the fact that he was associated by another trading body to which the information was supplied. He took no action tp protest as at the time he considered it might be good for all concerned. His short experience of tho Operation of the legislation had convinced him that it was not so, and he personally had suffered enormous loss in business. REPEALED OR SUSPENDED. Mr Statham, M.P., supported the request .on behalf of the Dunedin people, who were unaware of the legislation until the Labour Department notified them that they would have to close. He himself did not realise the significance of the clause when it was going through the House. He was not on the committee which considered it, and the measure went through the House in quick time towards the close of the session. While shopkeeper® who sold groceries, etc., had to close, fruiterers could, under the exemptions in the Act, remain open and sell such things as butter, bread, eggs, etc. The Dunedin’ people wanted the clause repealed altogether or suspended until next session. He understood that evidence was not called from the small shopkeepers when the bill was being considered in committee, although the Employees’ Union was given an opportunity of stating its views. MINISTER’S REPLY. BILL TO BE "INTRODUCED. In reply the Minister said that the Prime Minister and himself had given j'a promise to introduce this session a ’'bill repealing the clause objected to, and yesterday he gave notice t< that effect. If it were not blocked, tli- ■ measure would place them in the same position as before. A bill was introduced ■by “Mir McCombs early in the session, and a Government measure was brought down, a compromise being arrived at on this question. He was satisfied that the bill was. thrashed out in committee, and while all of the people were not acquainted with its contents- he gathered from statements that had been made to him by deputations,that a good many knew of tho proposed legislation. The session must necessarily be a short one, and it would depend upon the reception accorded to the amending bill whether it reached the- Statute Book or not. If there were organised .opposition to it—and he had been informed that the Labour Party proposed to oppose’ it—then it might happen that it would not pass. Dr Thacker: Sir William Herries promised when tha bill was being considered by tlie House last session that he would withdraw anything which might afterwards be found to be objectionable. The Minister replied that the House would have that opportunity this session. If the bill did not pass he could not hold out much hope of getting a measure tlirougli suspending the operation of the clause objected to until the second session of this year. He was sorry that there would not be sufficient time to refer it to the Labour Bills Committee for the taking of evidence. Mr Potter thanked the Minister for receiving the deputation and expressed the hope that the bill would go through this session. '