ANTI-SHOUTING LAW

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 131, 20 February 1918, Page 5

ANTI-SHOUTING LAW

HOTEL WORKERS' APPEAL

FOR MITIGATION OF PENALTIES

Another request for relief from the Aim-Shouting Regulations was made by a deputation of the Hotel Workers' Union, winch waited upon the Attor-ney-General (Sir Francis Bell) yesterday. Jlr. E. Kennedy, secretary of tho union, spoke for tho deputation, which included a number of hotel employees who had been punished for convictions under the regulations. Mr. Kennedy said that there were 10,000 members of the hotel workers' unions in different parts of New Zealand, and on behalf of this large body of workers he wished to protest generally against the Anti-Shouting Regulations as-being an unwarranted interference with thu traditional social habits of the people, and an encroachment on the liberty of the subject. Nor did he think that the passing of the regulations had achieved anything towards winning tho tfar. He did not think that in any part of the British Empire could bo found a piece of legislation similar to that under which they were suffering. The legislation provided for two penalties for the ono offence. On conviction an employee could be heavily fined, and his employment eould be taken away for a period of six months. A barman or a barmaid, if convicted under the regulations, was debarred from accepting employment in any capacity in an hotel in any part of New Zealand. If the Labour movement were to say to any worker, "You shall not work in any particular industry," there would be such an outcry against the movement that the policy would have to be diop-. ped.

Sir Francis Bell: Doesn't tho union do this now to a man who does not comply with its rules?

Jlr. Kennedy: Not to my knowledge. Sir Francis Bell: Doesn't it prevent him from working with unionists? Mr. Kennedy: Not to my knowledge. Deprivation of Livelihood. He went on to speak of the great hardship imposed on workers by this penaity of six months' disqualification. He said that those workers, who had spent all their lives in hotels, could not get other employment during the period of disqualification. Ho contended that the regulations were unl'air in that they cast all tho onus i> proof on the defendant. Practically the defendant had to prove that he was not guilty of the charge made agains. him. Sir Francis Bell: That is not without precedent. All the Customs Acts provide for that. Alleged Mistakes. Mr. Kennedy said that a further

grievance was that a person could bo wrongly charged and convicted under the regulations without having a chance to u'ake a defence. Police officorg could go to an hotel, observe what they considered to be a breach of the regulations, and a fortnight -or a month afterwards coiuo along and mako the charge. What chance had a dofondant to prepare a defence under these circumstances? He spoke of a case which had occurred in Gisborne while he had boon in that town. A young man was charged with a breach of the regulations, at a time when he was not iu the hotel at all. Ho (Mr. Kennedy) had made very searching inquiries into this case, and ho had been satisfied that tho facts were as he had stated. Early Closing. The union had euitered not only by the regulations, but by six' o'clock closing. This had done more to close the .avenues of employment throughout this country than,the regulations had done. Up to date the introduction of six o'clock closing had meant the reduction of stall's throughout this country in licensed houses of 1675, and there were returns still to come. It was recognised that the Government could not abolish the regulations; that was a matter fdr Parliament. But they would eugest' that the maximum fine should be reduced from £100 to, .say, £10, and tho six months' disqualification should be cut out altogether.

The Government had made no provision for the workers thrown out of employment by these regulations and by six o'clock closing. Daily applications made to the union office for work in hotels, but the work was not thero for them.

Sir Francis Bell: Then the hotels are very fortunate as compared with the rest of the community in having a surplus of applications for employment. Mr. Kennedy enid thai this was so, but the remarkable thing was that the union could not place girls or men in other employment. Work was not so plentiful in this-city as one might imagine. There were so many people inquiring for work, and so many out of work, that the labour market could not he so good as was commonly, eupposed. Gase for Consideration, Sir Francis Bell replied: You will understand that I could not possibly answer tiie very elaborate indictment that Mr. Kennedy hae presented without some consideration, and I can only promise you that I will consider ail that Mr. Kennedy on your behalf has put before me, and if I am satisfied

.that there is cause for these statements that the regulations are unduly harsh, then I will bring the matter before Cabinet with a recommendation for their mitigation. I only want to add one word to that, and it is to remind you all that the double penalty, as Mr. Kennedy calls it, is not without precedent. TJnder the Licensing Act there is a double penalty for an offence carrying an endorsement of the licence, and it is only just for you to remember that the regulations do not create the precedent of a double penalty. I will give it really careful consideration, because it! has been 'put before me very fairly, and very ably, I may say so, and I will let Mr. Kennedy , know what conclusion I have arrived at.