Heated debate on ‘jack-up’ at unionism hearing

Press, 23 November 1983, Page 1

Heated debate on ‘jack-up’ at unionism hearing

PA Wellington The hearing of submissions on contentious voluntary unionism legislation ended yesterday amid heated debate and claims of a “jack-up.”

Opposition members of Parliament reacted angrily to moves to cut off questioning of witnesses and move into committee to consider the Industrial Law Reform Bill. The Public Service Association, one of three groups that had been giving evidence to a Parliamentary select committee, later said it intended to write to the Prime Minister, Mr Muldoon, protesting about the way submissions had been considered. The bill, which provides for the introduction of voluntary unionism and youth rates in awards, may be reported back to Parliament next week. The deputy general secretary of the P.S.A., Mr Colin Clark, told reporters that the Government’s approach had been arbitrary and undemocratic and that incompatible groups had been “lumped together” to give evidence. The committee’s chairman, Mr C. B. Townshend, denied later that groups presenting submissions to the committee had been rushed.

“Forty-six minutes a submission to me is not rushed,” he said. He thought the public would be satisfied that all those who had concerns about the bill had had the opportunity to present their case and have it fairly heard. Asked for his response to the P.S.A.’s writing to Mr Muldoon to complain, Mr Townshend said, “That’s its privilege. I have no comment.”

Just after midday a Government committee member, Mr D. A. Angus, raised a point of order noting the time that had been given to the witnesses and suggesting that the committee address itself to making progress. Mr Townshend said that the three groups being heard by the committee — the P.S.A. the Combined State Unions, and the Post Office Union — had had longer than the Federation of Labour. Opposition members interrupted his comments, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Palmer, saying the point of order looked like a “jack-up.” Mr Townshend then asked the public, witnesses, and the press to withdraw so that the committee could deal with a procedural matter. After angry argument over committee procedures, public and press were excluded. Mr Clark said later that the P.S.A. intended writing to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the House, and the Social Credit leader to complain. Groups wanting to make submissions had been given only 13 days to do so for a measure described as “the most significant change in 50 years.”

There had been a noticeable absence of Ministers at the committee, he said. The P.S.A. could see that only as a deliberate slur on the trade union representatives who had appeared. It was also an indication of the contempt with which the Government viewed the trade union movement, he said. The chairman of the Combined State Unions, Mr Ron Burgess, described the

select committee proceedings as a fiasco. “We object in particular to the fact that organisations were forced to be heard together in spite of the wide difference between them,” he said. “The three groups which appeared before the committee today and last Friday — the C.S.U., the Post Office Union, and the P.S.A. — have totally different interests when it comes to questions of union membership. But we had to accept the Government members’ terms in order to get a hearing. “We also object to the abrupt closing of the hearing before the C.S.U. had adquately represented the views of the 190,000 members they cover. It was clear that the chairman of the select committee did not in fact understand the differences between the organisations which appeared before him.” Labour members of the committee strongly criticised the decision to halt hearing submissions on the bill. In a joint statement Mr Palmer, Mr E. E. Isbey, and Mr F. M. Gerbic said important evidence still remained to be heard. Witness after witness at the select committee hearings had warned of the grave and adverse consequences of the bill. “Still the Government is determined to rush headlong into the abyss,” they said. There was no reason why it must be passed this session. It was the most critical change to New Zealand’s industrial law since 1894. At that time there was an Upper House which could hold up legislation and look at it carefully. There were no such checks and balances now.