PARLIAMENT UNIONISM BILL BACK

Press, Volume C, Issue 29671, 15 November 1961, Page 16

PARLIAMENT UNIONISM BILL BACK

Committee Recommends Few Amendments (SZ. frm Association) WELLINGTON, November If. The controversial Industrial Conciliation and. Arbitration Amendment Bill was reported back to the House of Represen. t stives from the Labour Bills Committee todays The committee, which has a Government majority, • recommended that the bill proceed with some amendments.

The committee’s report was still being debated when the House rose for the tea adjournment and the debate is expected to be resumed tomorrow afternoon. The biU abolishes the present compulsory union membership provisions of the I.C. and A. Act. In place of this it provides for preference for union members. Opposition speakers in the debate today claimed the committee’s hearings were a waste of money because the Government had ignored evidence to the committee opposing the bill. The amendments recommended by the committee will not be available for publication until the committee’s report is accepted by the House.

The Labour Bills Committee chairman, Mr W. J. Scott (Government, Rodney) said the committee took more than 80 hours to hear evidence and discuss it. The committee heard 45 witnesses. Mr Scott said 17 persons submitted written evidence • but did not want to appear before the committee. Some submissions were violently opposed to the bill, some were mildly opposed, and some favoured it Feeling ran “a bit high” in the committee at times, and there were many points of order. "But I want to place on record my appreciation of the tolerance and assistance members of the committee gave me,” he said. Mr Scott said the committee recommended a number of amendments to the bill, but most were points of clarification. Most witnesses opposed the bill, Mr Scott said. "But I don't think I heard any witness say they wouldn’t be able to operate under the new measure." Some witnesses did not think the bill went far enough, and did not go as far as the Government proposed in its election policy. "But having heard the evidence I wouldn’t like to see the bill go any further than it does,” said Mr Scott. “Waste of Money” Mr F. Hackett (Opposition, Grey Lynn) said the committee’s sittings were a deliberate waste of public money and a waste of individuals’ and organisations' money. “During the whole time the committee was sitting the Government knew it was going to ignore completely the evidence put before the committee,” he said. Mr Hackett said 45 organisations and six individuals made submissions opposing the bill and there were 45 telegrams against it Three organisations, an Auckland firm and seven Individuals supported the bill "Thousands of pounds have been wasted in the committee’s sittings. The Minister of Labour is determined to put the bill through at all costs. That is the difference between the present Minister of Labour and the former Minister of Labour (Sir William Sullivan), who was prepared to accept the weight of evidence against the bill abolishing compulsory union membership.” Mr Hackett * n «ajd“This bill can only lead to uprising in industry. It must inevitably affect production. Even at this late hcur we plead with the Cabinet to plead with the caucus net to go ahead with it. The evidence against the bill is tpc overwhelming to be ignored.” Mr J. H. George (Government, Central Otago) said he objected to Mr Hackett’s

, statement that submissions to the committee vere a waste of time and were ignored. Mr S. A. Whitehead (Opposition, Nelson): Absolute rot Mr George: They were not ignored. We gave due weight to all the submissions made to the committee. We didn’t all go on to the committee with our hands tied. Mr Whitehead: That’s how ycu finished up. Mr N. V. Douglas (Opposition, Auckland Central): You had your minds bound. Mr George Convinced Mr George said he had started with “some misgivings” about whether the Government was right in going ahead with the btE “But there was sufficient evidence to convince me we were doing the right and proper thing.” he said. “Some people have said this is a stab in the back for unionism.. It is not It is to bring a new look inb unionism.” Mr J. Mathison (Opposition. Avon) -aid that during the period he orved on the committee it was obvious employers were ’arer com- . pulsory unionism should continue—from both the point of view of their own organisations* profits and the economy of the country. "I am luite sure some Government members thought unions existed solely for the purpose of collecting dues,” he said. ‘They were surprised to find the trade union secretaries were pretty intelligent, were ardent sup-

porters of their own members and had the ’knowhow’ to answer any questions.” Mr Mathison said there had been only modicum support for the bill. It was welcome only from the new point that, in a few years, union members who at ’present showed little interest in union affairs would have a much greater appreciation of its value. Mr Whitehead said the committee had been instructed by the Minister of Labour that the bill must proceed. “This instruction was given before the committee began its deliberations, and Government members loyally abided by it "The Minister left the hearing about the first hour, and wasn’t even there when the Engineers’ Union, which is 29,000 strong, made its submissions,” said Mr Whitehead.

Employers did not want the bill to proceed. Manufacturers wanted to retain industrial harmony. Unions* Membership Union membership In New Zealand had risen from 80.929 in 1835 to 331,959 in 1960, Miss M. B. Howard (Opposition, Sydenham) said. “Unions are stronger, are organised, and have a pur-, pose and won't have that purpose defeated,” she said. “This bill can only hurt the weak, small unions. But the big unions will help pull them through." Mr G. F. Sim (Government, Waikato) said most of the submissions opposing the bill were repetition. The committee had been justified in discounting evidence from the paid official of a union, when it was only a repetition of evidence given by major organisations.

Mr Douglas (Opposition. Auckland Central) said even those supporting the bill had to admit compulsory unionism had been a powerful influence in maintaining industrial harmony.

The Government was prepared to go ahead with a system no-one really understood or favoured. “There was confusion in every mind—even the Minister’s—at times,” he said. Almost every union witness bad been asked what financial contributions were made by the union to the Labour Party, and Government members of the com-

mittee had been "staggered” to find there were practically hpne, “They felt that by strangling apd weakening the trade union, movement, they were the Labour Party,” seid Mr Douglas. Mfr D. /. Riddiford (Government, Wellington Central) said the biH was the logical application "of the principles of trade unionism to the facts Of life. “Trade unions grew to maturity under voluntary unionism,” be said. He contended that the weight of evidence did not depend on mere numbers. Provisions Criticised Mr R. L. Bailey (Opposition, Heretaunga) said the provisions requiring a worker to become a member of a union within 14 days was compulsory unionism. Mr Sim: What are you grizzling about? Only three organisations and seven individuals had supported the amendment before the committee, said Mr Bailey. “Why destroy the principles of conciliation and arbitration, because that is what this legislation does. Small unions will be thrown to the wolves. Big unions will cause concern and embarrassment to the Government,” said Mr Bailey. The Minister of Labour (Mr Shand) said that, apart from the views of Miss Howard, he had been disappointed with the arguments of the Opposition. . , “I was horrified at the number of witnesses, trade union officials, and. employers’ representatives without a basic knowledge of the legislation,” said Mr Shand. A representative of a religious group had the widest grasp of the bill. “It is true the trade unions generally do not like this legislation at all,” said Mr Shand. “But there is a vast body of support for this bill and against compulsory unionism. They did not come along to the committee.” - <■ Mr W. A. Fox (Opposition, Miramar), a former vicepresident of the Federation of Labour, claimed the evidence was overwhelmingly against the bill which had not been sought by any section of industry at all. Compulsory Arbitration “If the Minister believes in democracy, will he remove the compulsory arbitration sections from the I.C and A. Act?” Mr Fox asked. “This bill will sound the death knell of compulsory arbitration. I appeal to the Minister to take it back to the Cabinet “I have never known men to speak so militantly before the committee, and they were men who have stood for compulsory arbitration,” said Mr Fox. The Deputy-Leader of the Opposition (Mr Skinner) said the bill was a complete reverse of what the National Party said it would do. “They said they would restore voluntary unionism. I do not think there is a great bulk of people who believe in this bill. There is no evidence at all in favour of the abolition of compulsory unionism,” said Mr Skinner.