Report says Marsden bill may break pact

Press, 21 June 1984, Page 6

Report says Marsden bill may break pact

PATRICIA HERBERT

By

and NZPA Parts of the legislation designed to force a return to work at Marsden Point may not have been in accord with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, according to a Human Rights Commission report made public last evening.

Two aspects of the Whangarei Refinery Expansion Project Disputes Bill were studied — the clauses dealing with the obligation to work and picketing. The commission reported its findings to the Prime Minister, Sir Robert Muldoon, whose department released the report last evening.

Sir Robert had earlier yesterday dismissed the report as lacking in substance and said that if it was published, the public would he neither edified nor im-

pressed by its contents.

Its existence was unknown until a member of the commission alerted reporters to it in an attempt, Sir Robert said, to make it a public issue. This left him no option but to discuss with the Minister of Justice, Mr McLay, whether to release it, he said, indicating that to do so would be to embarrass the commission.

The Marsden Point legislation denied the right to unemployment benefit for four months, to any project worker who, without good reason, failed to return to the site to be rehired on June 13.

It also outlawed picketing bans, and prohibited strikes of lock-outs unless 14 days notice had been given in writing. The commission said that it limited its comments to the two human rights as-

pects but pointed out that detailed consideration of the bill was not possible in the time available.

On the obligation to work, the commission said one traditional freedom has generally been for employers to choose whom they would employ and for employees to choose for whom they would work.

It said it appreciated that clause 6 provided for temporary loss of entitlement to an unemployment benefit, rather than a fine, imprisonment, or other penalties.

But while not sufficiently appraised of the facts to express a definite opinion, the commission believed it was possible that clauses 3, 4, and 6 of the bill were not in accord with the covenant which New Zealand had ratified.

“This is because depriva-

tion of entitlement to an unemployment benefit could be regarded as a form of compulsion,” the report said.

Clause 10 of the bill dealt with picketing and gave any member of the police of or above the rank of sergeant a wide discretionary power to direct a person to remove themselves and stay at a reasonable distance. The commission said the covenant recognised that the freedom of expression and assembly might be subject to restrictions necessary for the rights or reputations of others, or for the protection of national security or public safety and order. There could be room for debate, it said, whether the bill’s clause 10 fell within those exceptions and it was at least arguable that the clause was not in accord with the convenant. “This is because in terms of clause 10 the police can require a picket to remove himself or herself from a public place as distinct from private property, even though the picket is behaving in a perfectly orderly and peaceful manner,” the report said. Existing law contained provisions concerning

trespass and picketing which the commission said generally appeared adequate to prevent improper picketing. Even assuming that the police required further powers, appropriate legislation could be drafted in terms which clearly preserved the right to peaceful picketing, it said.

In the commission’s view, it was important to maintain the principles of freedom of expression and assembly even if the police were not likely to exercise unreasonably any new powers given to them, the report said. “If the powers are wrong in principle and could be abused, they should not be given,” it said.

The commission said it believed that it was important that no inroads be made upon individual freedoms unless they were truly essential to the functioning of a fair and democratic society. “Inroads into individual freedoms are most likely to be made when it is necessary to deal with a difficult or unpopular minority. The limits then imposed also tend thereafter to form precedents for continuing erosion of citizens’ rights and freedoms,” it said.