SHOP HOURS SILL

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10849, 15 March 1921, Page 5

SHOP HOURS SILL

A BREEZE IN THE HOUSE

PETITION SAID TO BE “FULL OF FORGERIES.” FIRST READING CARRIED. Some degree of warmth was generated in the House of Representatives yeeterday afternoon through a Labour member declaring that a petition with 4000 signatures in favour of the Shops and Offices Bill was fraudulent. Mr J. McCombs (Lyttelton) called the attention of the Speaker to two petitions presented at a previous sitting of the House, neither of which was in form a petition to the House. One petition, he said, was stated by the hon. member who presented it- to be signed by 4000 shopkeepers, but it did not contain the signature of a single shopkeeper. Moreover, many of the names had been signed in the same hahdwriting. He quoted a standing order to the effect that it is highly unwarrantable and a breach of the privileges of the House for any person to 6i'gn the name of another person to a petition to be presented to this House, except in case of inability to write. The petition, which was said to contain the signatures of 4000 shopkeepers, he declared, was absolutely fraudulent. NO FORGERY. Mr V. H. Potter (Rosk'ill) 6aid that he had presented the petition in question ; and if, through ignorance on his part, there was any informality in connection with it, he would be very glad to remedy it. The hon. member for Lyttelton was quite misled in thinking that there was a single forgery on the petition. .Every individual signature had been written by the person concerned.

Mr McCombs: Not a single shopkeeper has signed it. The Speaker said that the practice in such a case was to return the petition to the hon. member who had presented it, so that he could remedy any informality, -and present the petition on another occasion. If the petition was found to be informal, that would be done on the present occasion. DEBATE ON FIRST READING. “CHOCK FULIToF"FORGERIES.” Later, the Hon. G. J. Anderson formally introduced his Shops and Offices Act, 1920, Amendment Bill. Mr J. McCombs (Lyttelton) urged the necessity for setting up a committee to which evidence could be referred, and which could take evidence for and against the bill, which had been introduced at the behest of only 400 to 500 persons who had signed a petition. Mr Potter: "What about my petition with 4000 signatures? Mr McCombs: It is fraudulent. Not a single shopkeeper signed it. Mr Potter: Do you swear that the petition is bogus? Mr McCombs: I swear that it is chock full of forgeries. The hon. member added that for seventeen years tbe shop assistants were the only workers who had by law to work 52 hours a week. Last session’s Act had reduced their hours to 48 a week; and now it was proposed to whittle away that Act. At the behest of these 400 to 500 people, the Government was not only prepared to amend but to break the law. One of the members of the deputation which waited upon the Minister for Labour at Wellington had wired the Auckland small shopkeepers that the Minister had 6aid that they could keep open their shops after 6 p.m. and“would 'not he prosecuted. NOT THIS SESSION. Mr Anderson said that he could not give the hon. member such a committee as he had asked for this session, as the bill would simply be talked out in the committee; and the result would be that what was regarded as a grave injustice by a great number of people would go unremedied. Mr McCombs: Four hundred people 1 Mr Anderson said that large deputations had waited in different centres upon the Prime Minister and himself; and they had promised them that Parliament should ha.ve an opportunity of considering the matter this session. It was only until the House had had such an opportunity that he had stated, only a week ago, that the department would not institute any prosecutions. If the matter was not remedied, a great many worthy people would be penalised. Mr McCombs: They are the same people as opposed the Saturday halfholiday. The bill was then read a first time.