PENALTY FOR VANDALISM

Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25589, 2 September 1948, Page 6

PENALTY FOR VANDALISM

COURT’S DECISION BRUSH BETWEEN MINISTER AND MR SHEAT (P.A.) WELLINGTON. Sept. 1. Described by the Deputy-Speaker (Mr Clyde Carr) as “an exchange ’of compliments,” a brush between the Minister of Labour (Mr A. McLagan) and Mr W. A. Sheat (Opposition, Patea) enlivened the discussion on Ministers’ replies to members’ questions, in the House of Representatives this afternoon. The subject was the attitude of the Minister and a trade union to the decision of a Magistrate that two boys should work in a park as a penalty for vandalism. Last week Mr Sheat gave notice to ask the Minister: “Whether he will give an immediate assurance that any attempt by trade union officials to frustrate or impede the enforcement of penalties properly inflicted by the Courts will not be tolerated by the Government.” In a note to the question. Mr Sheat said two youths convicted of serious vandalism in the children’s playground at Kawaroa Park. New Plymouth, were ordered by the magistrate, in addition to a substantial money fine, to work- at least 120 and 100 hours respectively in borough reserves. The New Plymouth Borough Council and the Child Welfare Department had now been notified that the youths, if employed' on reserves, must become members of the Labourers’ Union, and receive labourers’ pay.

Minister’s Reply Mr McLagan, in a written reply, today, said: “I have had inquiries made, and am advised that the union gave notice that employment of the boys on borough council reserves would require to be in terms of the Taranaki Local Bodies Labourers’ Award. The union’s action appears to have been in the direction of upholding the provisions of the law as enacted in the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act and amendments.”

Mr Sheat. discussing this reply this afternoon, said it appeared that the magistrate, after imposing the sentence. was approached by the union secretary. What transpired was unknown, but it was known that as a result of the secretary’s action the penalty as imposed had not been enforced. At the time the magistrate was widely applauded -for the stand he took. It was generally recognised as a case of making the punishment fit the crime, and the example was followed in Dunedin.

Mr Sheat said if the situation was to obtain in which trade union secretaries in the sacred name of trade unionism were to be allowed to bringpressure to bear on magistrates to defeat the carrying out of salutary sentences. it would be a sorry state of affairs. It could not be suggested that the carrying out of the penalty imposed by the magistrate would have been detrimental to the interests of any trade unionist. The action taken made a travesty of the administration of trade unions.

“I believe the Government should take some strong action to prevent this sort of thing happening in future.’’ said Mr Sheat. “The Minister suggests the secretary’s action was in the direction of upholding the law, but his action appears also to have been in the direction of encouraging vandalism of a serious character—something which responsible persons desire to see stamped out. It is deplorable that any pressure should be brought to bear on a magistrate to have a punishment imposed bv him varied or set aside. Crown Law Opinion Mr McLagan said one could understand the indignation of the member for Patea when he saw vanish the prospects of a job being done on the wage basis so satisfactory to him--nothing at all Such arrangements would have the unqualified support of members opposite. Such wages compared with some which obtained under former Nationalist Governments. The secretary of the union concerned had merely taken steps to see that the law of the country was observed. (Opposition laughter.) Mr Sheat: That is the only joke the Minister has ever made.

Mr McLagan ssid he had caused inquiries to be made into the matter. An opinion he obtained from the Crown Law Office was to the effect that the magistrate had no power to order work on borough reserves. Mr Sheat: Then the remedy was to contest the sentence. Mr McLagan said the opinion was that the magistrate, while entitled to place offenders under the supervision of the Child Welfare Officer, had no power to order them to work for a particular person or for the borough council. “That is tiie opinion of the Crown Law Office, regardless of the affection the honourable member may have for work done for no wages,” said Mr McLagan. T am not criticising the action of the magistrate.’’ Opposition voice; Oh, no. Not at ail. Mr McLagan said the opinion of the Crown Law' Office was also that, as the magistrate was not empowered to make the order he did. the borough council, had the boys been employed by it, would have been in the relationship of master to servant, and would have been obliged to pay them award wages. It would therefore also have been necessary, according to this opinion, for the youths to join the union.

Deputy-Speaker Intervenes Mr McLagan said if ever the people of New Zealand entrusted the National Party with the Government they would interfere with the I. C. and A. Act as they had done in the past. Mr Sheat: What did the Communist Party think about it when the Minister was a member of it? Mr McLagan: That was about the period when the honourable member for Patea would have nothing to do with the leaders of the Labour Party because they were not revolutionary enough for him. The Deputy-Speaker (Mr Clyde Carr), who was in the chair: I don’t think this exchange of compliments is relevant to the question. Mr McLagan said Mr Sheat made some personal claims to legal knowledge, but his knowledge of the law might now be enlarged Mr Sheat had called the written reply ridiculous, but it it were, it was entirely appropriate to the member who had asked the question. Mr Sheat accused the Government of encouraging vandalism, but there would be some exhibitions of vandalism if ever Mr Sheat got his way with the social legislation of the country. Mr Sheat had the audacity to say that the upholding of the law brought about a deplorable state of affairs. Did members opposite think the law should be set aside according to their own prejudices? Mr J. K. McAlpine (Opposition, Selwyn) said he was surprised that the Minister had defended the trade union secretary’s action.- which might be used by the trade union movement as an example of the means which could be used to defeat the laws of the country. .It was amazing the Minister should appear to defend two lawbreakers and to encourage the setting aside of punishments designed to curb vandalism.

Mr W. A. Bodkin (Opposition. Central Otago) said he was amazed that a Minister of the Crown should say that the provisions of the I. C. and A Act should aoply in the case under discussion. The attitude of the Minister was more serious ‘han the action of the trade union s cretary. who might have been more r ool than knave, because he did not realise the implications of his action Did the Minister suggest seriously that person who was ordered by a court of justice to render certain services came within the provisions of the I. C. and A. Act? Mr T E Skinner (Government. Tamaki) said hat the member for Patea and others like him would like to see the day when Magistrate - would direct free labour to their farms. Mr R. M. Mncfarlane (Government. Christchurch Central) said the question was whether the work the boys were doing was governed by an award. Mr R. M Algie (Opposition. Rem uera) said that if the sentence imposed bv the Magistrate was wrong it would have been easy to have it corrected by legal processes. There was too much interference and belittling of legal officers to-day and if a person approached a Magistrate without authority that action should be condemned.