PARLIAMENT.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1891, 28 October 1913, Page 4

PARLIAMENT.

LOCAL BILLS, THE WEEKLY HALF HOLIDAY. AUCKLAND BILL OPPOSED. ; Tlio House of Representatives sat at 7.30 p.m. yesterday. Mr. G. LAURENSON (Lyttelton) gave notice to ask tho Minister of Defoncc whether it was;a fact■that tho . members of tho Wellington Garrison Officers' Ghib had 1 been given on ■ultimatum 1 that they must obey orders or ro- . sign their commissions. Ho added' that a rumour.to this cffcct was current in Wellington... ... " 1 , , . 'V ' PATEA HARBOUR. The Patea Harbour Bill (Mr. 6. V. Pearco) was committed. Mr., G. V. PEAROE (Patea) explained that tho "only ohango mado in tho Bill by ; 'tho committ<M3'.was' that land excluded from the Wajiganui Harbour Rating District by tho 6pccial commission had been included hi, tho Patea district. No objection was being raised to this,change. Tho Bill »'was reported with amendments;'. read a third timo, and passed. WANCANUI HARBOUR. The amendments mado by the comiiiittco in the Wanganui Harbour Distnctjand Empowering Bill (Mr. W. A. Veitch)' wcre agreed to, and: tho Bill - a-.third time. HALF-HOLIDAY. TO THE BILL.' On. the motion 'that the Auckland Weekly Half-Holiday Bill (Mr. J. H. Bradhey) bo committed, SIR JOSEPH WARD (Awarua) said he. proposed' to vote against tho Bill. Tlio prople of Auckland had already voted oncb on tho half-holiday question, and why should they bo required to vote again ? Mr. A. HARRIS (Waitomata) said he',' too, wouldi vote agairist the Bill. , .He- .explained- that ho .would have ho ) objection'to a poll being taken , in cer : tain-districts, which, by being subsequently brought into tho combined area, wore 'farced to observe a particular halfholiday without tho people having an opportunity to vote on tho question, but ho objected to a fresh poll being taken over: tho whole , district. Supposing thq;,fresh poll were taken and Wednesday : was decided upon, tho Saturday peoplo would have an equal right with ' tho'.'promoters, of tho present Bill to apply/for another poll. Tho procedure suggested by tho Bill was entirely unsound. ■' ' ' " " m:LT. H:\.DAVEY (Christcburch' East) said he would opposo the . Bill, and no urged that tho Bill was practically an amendmont of the Shops and Offices Act. The fact was that tho now. poll was being' asked_ for, not by the: people in certain districts who had notj iiad a vote on tho half-holiday proposal; but by people in Auckland City who ,woro not satisfied with tho "result of 'the poll. It was , surely tlio duty of Parliament to give some consideration to those who had voted for tlio Saturday half-holidav. • Mr.'.J. S. DICKSON (Parnell) explained'}'that: the Bill had been asked forj by'-petitions from.-, 15,000 people. Ho'.added, also that ; the addition to the . combined area brought iii 15,000 moro people. He would certainly not bo in favour of a poll for tho districts added to tho combined, area. Mr. J. BOLLARD (Eden) urged that a new poll ought to be taken, and that this was the only fair solution of n difficulty that had been created by tho taking of a poll prior to the addition . of large districts to the combined area. Sir. G. WITTY (Riccarton) thought the House 'had - no right 'to interfero with what tho Auckland people had done, and, therefore, no right to nasi, the Bill. , Mr.iH. G: ELL (Christchurch South) opposed the Bill. Hb thought tho House would be making a great mistako In passing the Bill, for the reason that it would create unrest throughout tlio country, by allowing .the impression, to go abroad that tho result or a poll on n half-holiday proposal or on any other proposal could bo disturbed by petitions to Parliament. ■ Mr. A. E, GLOVER. (A uckland Central) supported the Bill. Who Ask for the The Hon. W. F. MASSEY (Prime Minister) gave-an account of his connection with,, the Bill.' A deputation of Auckland members had approached him and asked him io introduco into Parliament a Bill to allow tho combined districts, of' Auckland to take n. fresh poll on tho question of tho day on which tho weekly half-holiday should bo observed. Ho had been given to under? stand that' Auckland . mombers were unanimously in favour of tlio Bill, and j he .believed at t'h -i t, tims they were. , Tho reason the members had given for the, Bill was that .areas carrying a ■ population of from ,l(J,000 ; to 17,000 : pie liad been added to ' the . combined ; districts, and tlicso peoplo had .had no opportunity of voting" on tho ' halfholiday question when tfhe last poll was taken. - Ho did not dispute that the poll was takon properly under the law, .but tho law was not wy'l understood., Tlio peoplo in thes© added districts felt aggrieved that they were not consulted- in tho poll. Also' TCden Terrace Road district was not in tho combined district, and it observed Wednesday as tho closing day, although it was in- the-very centre of tho city. The! result had been that in tho boundary.' streets certain shopkeepers, had moved across tho street into Eden Terrace, to avoid tho -Saturday half-holi-da.y. He had also had petitions from certain people, who said that if Saturday cphtimiod .to: bo the half-holiday ,it meant ruin to "certain small tradesmen. Ho looked at the matter from ovcry point of view, and ho decided to take chargo of the Bill. It was afterwards - suggested by the Labour Bills Commit-' tee that the Bill was a local Bill, and this proposition was supported by Mr. Speaker. Tho Bill, having becomo a local Bill, had passed from his hands to ' • Mr, Bradney, as ono of the representatives of Auckland City. Ho added that 1 tho Bill was not supported by all the people of Auckland. Cortam of the big traders wero strongly opposed to it, i and the people who supported it were ' the small traders. I Mr. G. LAURENSON (Lyttelton). said that the Prime Minister had omit- j tod to mention ono vory large class of i peoplo who were opposed to tho Bill— ; the employees of tho large traders. Ho ■ opposed the Bill. Mr. A. H. HINDMARSH (Wellington , South) said that the ruin of tho small 1 shopkeepers did not como into the ques- < tion. All that the House should con- ! sidpr waß whether it was right that a half-holiday on Saturday should bo , foiccd upon people had not been | consulted. Tlio case of Eden Terrace , had been dealt with under tho Shops < and Offioes Bill In Committee. Aftor reviewing tho oase for and against tho ( Bill at some length,_ he said he hoped , the Houso would rejeofc tho Bill as a , most undesirablo piece of ox post facto 1 legislation. jgITT (Ohristohuroh , North) said tho House would bo set- ( ting up a very dangerous precedent by ) rov crsing tho poll in Auckland. i

An Auokland Monitor's View. Mr. J, H. BRADNEY (Auckland . West) agreed with tho general principle that it was not wise to disturb a poll, but this poll had been taken under extraordinary oircumstancos. Otherwise, he would not support the Bill. He' knew also that tho Bill was being asked for not only by shopkoepers, but '.. operatives and other workers. Petitions. had bedn recoivod stamped by woikers' unions. All tho Auckland members had been in favour of the '. Bill, but Mr. Harris had, aftor interviewing somo of his constituents, decided to opposo it. . Tho real reason for tho opposition of the peoplo on the I other sido of tho harbour was that they wished to have a separate poll held, at . which they could carry Wednesday clos- ' ing, while tlio city retained Saturday " cksing. There was method in the hou--0 omablo member's madness. 1 Mr. A. Harris denied that he had: withdrawn his support from the Bill to pleaso his constituents. " The motion that tho Houso go into " Committee on tho Bill was carried by i 29 votes to .19. Going Through Committee. la Committee, Mr. G. Witty moved to amend the short title, to make it "Devonport Weekly Half-Holiday Bill," instead of J "Auckland Weekly Half-Holiday Bill." ' It was 11 p.m. beforo the Committee E went to, a division on tho amendment, - aftor discussing iti for an hour and tt [ half. Tho amendmont was defeated by j 25 votes to 21. Tho obstruction was continued, however, mostly by Mossrs. Ell, '• Harris, Hindmarsh, and Witty. At 0.35 a.m. Mr. Harris moved an amendmont in tlio short title to insert ' the word ''suburban," making the short title "Tho Auckland Suburban Weekly Half-Holiday Bill." Tho Committee divided on the amendment almost at , onco and tho amendment was defeated by 23 votes to 17. . Mr. G. Witty then moved to strike out all tTie words in tho clause _ after "Auckland," but Mr. Malcolm said this would make tho clause meaningless, and he could not therefore accept it. Then he moved to strike out only the word "weekly," but Mr. Malcolm said this would leave tho clause ambiguous and ho_ did not admit the amendment. Mr. Witty then suggested that ho should make it "monthly" or even "yearly" half-holiday, but Mr. Malcolm would not allow these changes either as being contrary in meaning to tho rest of the Bill. Mr. A. H. Hindmarsh moved an amendment to make the short title "The Auckland Provincial District Weekly Half-Holiday Bill." And tlio oft-used arguments were all repeated again. (Loft Sitting.)