Danger seen in changes to law on picketing

Press, 4 March 1981, Page 1

Danger seen in changes to law on picketing

Wellington reporter

Changes to the law on picketing might not be to the advantage of unionists, said the Minister of Labour. Mr Bolger, last evening.

In his first full statement since last week’s widespread disruption in protest against the arrest of the Mangere pickets, Mr Bolger said that any positive law on picketing — the main demand of the Federation of Labour — would not only have to spell out when picketing was legal but when it was contrary to the law. In that category would have been the pickets in support of the bank officers’ strike, Mr Bolger said. “In any positive law on picketing, those pickets would have to be declared illegal,” he said. Mr Bolger was addressing the annual meeting of the National Party’s Pencarrow electorate, on the subject of the Government’s role in. industrial . relations. The topic had been agreed some weeks ago and was overtaken by the events of the last week, to which Mr Bolger devoted all of his address. “It has been a testing ■ time for New Zealand and for the Government,” he said. “We have seen not an industrial dispute, although a dispute was the basis of the confrontation, but an attack on the impartial application of the - law.” “This attack was taken to extremes not exi perienced in New Zealand ■ for decades. In order to ! draw attention to their . endeavours, some trade union leaders voluntarily went to jail to try to promote action by their mod- ; erate followers. “They failed,” he said. Referring to yesterday’s “people’s march” at Auckland, Mr Bolger said that nothing had been more heartening to those in the middle of the turmoil of the last week than the sight of thousands of New Zealanders marching under the banner, “Kiwis care.” “Militant trade union leaders everywhere should take note that the public have had enough of unnecessary stoppages, and that what they demand

from trade union leaders is responsible leadership,” he said. “They are not about to have the laws of New Zealand put to on, side for the convenience of militant trade-union leaders. “Further, they are not going to have New Zealand thrown into- chaos by those who seek to benefit from that chaos. “The first message must be that Kiwis ne; I to care sufficiently about tradeunion affai-: to take an active part in policy and decision-making. It is not sufficient to leave it to the other fellow. It is not sufficient to make decisions without a clear understanding of what the decisions ' are,” said Mr Bolger. Union leaders had tried to create .an impression that the confrontation of the last week was “understandable” because traditional trade-union rights to picket were threatened. “No such ‘right’ was or is threatened,” Mr Bolger said. “What is at issue is whether the general laws should fall impartially on all citizens or whether trade unions, in pursuit of an industrial aim should be treated as a special group,” he said. “The next lesson that should be learned by those who need to learn it is that high office carries with it responsibility.” Mr Bolger said that the F.O.L. did not move quickly enough to exercise responsible leadership in the early stages of the dispute. “In fact, at times it appeared that it sought by its utterances to harden the issues rather than resolve them,” he said. Mr Bolger said that he had made his own position clear when, in a radio broadcast on the morning of Mr McLay’s decision, he had said that it was not possible to “trade the law for industrial peace.” What was being sought by the F.O.L. was a law to spell out the positive right to picket, and the

initial reaction of many had been that there was some logic in this, because picketing had been an accepted trade union practice for years, he said. “Without prejudging the outcome of any discussions between .the Government and the parties, I suggest, however, that a careful assessment of this approach may show that the law is better unchanged,” Mr Bolger said. “There is a strong tradeunion belief that a change to a positive law would be to their advantage but I suggest that that is not necessarily so. “I suggest that moderate trade union leaders reflect that pickets have been part of the trade union protest for the last 30 years, without running foul of the law until recent days. There is no reason why a similar record should not continue for the next 30 years,” he said.*

If, however, elements within the trade-union movement wanted to confront the Government by breaking the law, they could achieve that within either existing law or amended law, he said. Mr Bolger said that those who maintained Tasman transport links were to be thanked, but, by contrast, he had to express concern that the Cook Strait ferries stopped “once again” without the 14 days notice required under the Industrial Relations Act for essential services. “The public’s anger about such tactics is understandable. The unions that caused these stoppages showed a contempt for the needs of the travelling public that is deplorable,” he said. “They, too, must understand that the laws of the land apply to them. “Kiwis care very deeply about their country and their laws, and are not about to have them brought into disrepute for narrow, sectional ends,” Mr Bolger said. Mr Muldoon’s view, page 6

PA ' Auckland Auckland’s main thoroughfare, Queen Street was barely big enough for the thousands who poured out of offices, shops, factories, and suburban homes yesterday to march against industrial disruption.

They came from all parts of Auckland, and some from much further afield, to line up behind a young woman, Miss Tania Harris, to prove that “Kiwis care.” ,

They marched out of Aotea Square near the Auckland Town Hall, angry about the crippling wave of strikes that occurred after the arrests of airport picketers last week.

They arrived at the Downtown Square buoyant and singing, jamming lower Queen Street in one of the biggest demonstra-