PARLIAMENT I. C. and A. BILL GIVEN FIRST READING

Press, Volume C, Issue 29620, 16 September 1961, Page 12

PARLIAMENT I. C. and A. BILL GIVEN FIRST READING

Divisions Forced On All Stages Of Introduction

(ft-Z. Press Association) WELLINGTON, September 15. The Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill was given a first reading in the House of Representatives at 335 p.m. today in the face of strong Opposition protests. The bill was first presented to the House at 730 p.m. yesterday. The Government applied the closure three times to end debate on various stages of the bill’s introduction. The Opposition forced a vote on every stage of the bill’s introduction. It was finally given a first reading by 37 votes to 29.

The Minister of Labour (Mr Shand) immediately asked for leave to move without notice that the bill be read a second time pro forma and referred to the Labour Bills Committee, but Opposition members objected and Mr Shand could only give notice that he would move the second reading next sitting day.

The bill removes the present compulsory union membership clause from the I. C. and A. Act. In its place it provides that employers and employees in conciliation can agree to make membership of a union compulsory. If agreement is not reached in conciliation, membership of a union can be made compulsory if 50 per cent, of members in a union vote for compulsory membership in a secret ballot.

Mr Shand today made it plain that unqualified preference, as envisaged in the bill to replace compulsory unionism, did not mean a “closed shop” union. Unqualified preference gave the union the same protection it got under compulsory unionism, but it outlawed the right of the union to say who the employer could hire or fire. This procedure was known as a “closed shop” union. “In many industries there will be a union shop with things continuing much as they do now. But it will be the people themselves who decide to make it so.” said Mr Shand in his explanation. “In many others, where unionism has -not operated satisfactorily, and where the union has forgotten its members to look after its own officers, the unions may really suffer.”

Mr Shand said the bill contained two basic principles—freedom to join a union or not to join, and the principle that people who got the benefits of an organisation should pav for them. “You cannot fulfil both of these principles absolutely,” he said. “This bill represents a compromise between the two

“If a majority want to be compelled to join a union they will be compelled. If a majority do not want to be compelled to join, they won’t. That is all there is to it" Right to Work Opening the debate today, Mr N. E. Kirk (Opposition, Lyttelton) said the bill took away the automatic right to work.

Mr P B. Allen (Government, Bay of Plenty): That's nonsense and you know it. Mr Kirk: The right to work is the most important freedom of alt Mr C. G. S. Harker (Government, Hawke’s Bay): We are going to see that the worker is going to get it for the first time in years. Mr Kirk said that the bill would destroy the freedom of the employer and the employee to make a bargain The employer who was prepared to employ a man would say “I am prepared to hire you. Are you a member of the union?" The man might be a member of another union and when he went to join the union covering the industry he desired to enter the secretary of that union could say “we have a member who wants that job.” The employer would be obliged to take that member. "Unfair” Measure

The Government, said Mr Kirk. Was doing no more than discriminating unfairly and improperly against those who worked with their hands and minds for wages and salaries. The Government was not applying this principle to the "friendly societies” to which some of their members were forced to belong, said Mr Kirk

The Law Society, said Mr Kirk, had successfully prose, cuted a solicitor who had refused to contribute to the “grog fund” of the society—as the social fund was called.

Mr F. Hackett (Opposition, Grey Lynn) said the move would disrupt the entire economy of the country, •’Riis could put father against son. brother against brother if they had differing views on compulsory union ism." There were in this country 398 trade unions with 331.955 unionists, 259 industrial unions of employers with 22.618 employers, he said. “It is safe to say that none will give evidence in favour of this bill," said Mr Hackett. The Federation of Labour at conference after confer, ence had gone on record favouri.l- compulsory unionism. The Department of Labour was happy with the present set-up Evidence To Committee ”If the Government is going to listen to the evidence of the Labour Bills Committee they might as well save the time and money of the country and drop the bill

now,” said Mr Hackett. “We know the evidence will be against the bill.”

The recent “disastrous” dock strike in Britain had been caused by only one thing, the employment of non-unionists, he said. Mr D. J. Riddiford (Government, Wellington Central) said the idea of the right to work being destroyed was a “fantastic conclusion.” He described Mr Hackett as having his mind too much in the past—“his fears won’t materialise.”

The Speaker <Mr Algie) at this stage appealed to all members to handle “this difficult subject” with the utmost care.

“I want the public to be well informed,” he said. Mr J. B. Gordon (Govern, ment, Clutha) said the best example of voluntary unionism in the country was Federated Farmers.

At 12. .0 p.m. the Minister of Transport (Mr McAlpine) moved the closure, but the Speaker said that he was not ready to accept the motion.

Seven members of the Opposition and five members of the Government had spoken and five members had risen to their feet when the last speaker sat down. “I think I would like to hear a little more,” said the Speaker. Claim Questioned

Mr N. V. Douglas (Opposition, Auckland Central) said the existing I.C. and A. Act had been a major factor contributing towards New Zealand’s good record of industrial relations. He questioned an earlier statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Holyoake) that he had been a trade unionist. "What union did the Prime Minister belong to?” Mr Douglas asked. “We have searched the records to see what union the Prime Minister belonged to, but our search has been fruitless.” Mr Shand: Your research officers can’t be very competent.

Mr Douglas said there would be compulsory unionism in New Zealand, notwithstanding the bill. “There will be compulsory unionism where unions are strong enough to enforce it. We will do everything we can to see they are strong enough to enforce it,” he said. “If we pass this bill we are going to introduce internecine strife in industry and set worker against worker—all under the pretence of introducing freedom. “Freedom for whom? Freedom for a niggardly few who want to accept everything and contribute nothing,” Mr Douglas said.

“The only people who can benefit from this bill are those with anarchist leanings. Communist sympathies, or Fascist tendencies. The anarchist never wants to accept the laws of society. The Communist is only concerned about the chaos he can create, and this bill will create the climate in tfhich chaos can be generated. The Fascist wants to break down and destroy those factors in society which stand in the way <ff his aspirations to dictatorship.” Strong and Weak

Mr W. A. Fox (Opposition, Miramar) said the bill would mean strong unions became stronger and weak unions would “go to the wall.” Mr S. A. Whitehead (Opposition, Nelson) said Mr Shand had taken the proposals to the Federation of Labour, which was unanimously opposed to them. “I challenge the Government to resign and accept the decision of the trade unionists whether they want the present legislation or not.” said Mr Whitehead.

“The Employers’ Federation knows what is in the bill and opposes it The federation said so in the press on June 17.” Mr Shand said he believed in a strong trade union movement. Mr R. Macdonald (Opposition, Ponsonby): Well, tear this bill up. Mr Shand: The trade union movement has grown up and realises its responsibilities. It’s a pity the Labour Party doesn't. “Compulsion Shifted” Mr Shand said the bill provided for a properly conducted secret ballot for union, members to decide if they wanted compulsory membership. “There are no slippery tricks in the bill,” he added.

Mr Kirk: Would the Minister agree the bill is shifting compulsion from one level to another?

Mr Shand: No. Yes, perhaps I would. It takes the enforcement of compulsion from the Government’s shoulders and makes it a matter of agreement by the people concerned.