Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1911. THE SHOP ACT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10172, 23 February 1911, Page 4

Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1911. THE SHOP ACT.

The opinions expressed some' time by the- Age concerning., the •anomalies contained '<in. -the ''.'last amendment of the Shops and .Offices Act, have been endorsed by. very nearly every newspaper in the Dominion. The clause, which makes.it impossible for more than, one owner to register as a partner .in a business, is held to be mischievous and annoying, and has occasioned a vigorous protest by employers ; generally. The Otago Daily Times says this clause was no* contained in the Bill as originally brought down, but its insertion in it was secured by the Minister of Labour when t>he measure was in committee. Speaking as to its purport in the House, Mr Millar explained thaffl there were a' number of trades in which a, man, 'his' 'wife, and children Kept a shop which, was open at all hours, while the -shop of a man who employed labour was compelled to close at a specific hour, and this constituted. unfair competition. He proposed to iasert the clause, he added, (to deal with cases that had been brought under his notice 'by'the Employers' Federation. Consequently, as our Dunedin' contemporary points out, ifc may be' doubtful whether the

remedy is not likely, to prove worse than the disease. J.he requirements of the law respecting the employment of shop assistants are strictly defined, and the matter goes further than the mere opening and closing of shops. In endeavouring to realise his ideal of a fixed hour for opening and for closing shops in all trades the Minister would seem to have ignored the possible creation of the state of affairs of which a number of shopkeepers now 'complain. In the case of a business now con* ducted by partners the effect of clause 13 of the Shops and Offices Amendment Act is to place all the partners but one—that one being registered as the occupier—in the position of shop assistants, and, as shop assistants cannot work more' than a certain amount of overtime, only one of the partners is, subject to the overtime provisions, entitled' (to work on his premises after his. shop is closed. If this intei-pre-tation of the,. Act is correct, and it is difficult to see how any less chaotic construction can be placed upon it— 'the Legislature has, . perhaps Unwittingly, subjected people who are in partnership in business to a very serious injustice. The purpose of clause 13 is reasonable, enough. As the Attorney-General explained whan the Bill was before the Legislative Council, it was intended 'to prevent unfairness which-was found to be caused when occupiers, of shops who employed a number of hands were, compelled-to close, and let their "assistants away while other shops kept by; partners or by persons whose .assistants were 'members of ithe family were able to Seep open. Unfortunately, however, the responsible Minister and the members of both Houses appear to have failed I altogether to Realise .the fulL effect of the law they were making. The explanation is probably to be found in the inevitable 'rush which, under our. system of Parliamentary mischaracterises the end. "of every, session. Bills pushed through; with little or no consideration, and thei result is slipshod and faulty legislation.