NO POLITICS OR NO PREFERENCE

Evening Post, Volume LXXX, Issue 5, 6 July 1910, Page 6

NO POLITICS OR NO PREFERENCE

A point which has been engaging the attention of organised Labour all over the Empire for some considerable time was briefly discussed in the House of Representatives yesterday. It was decided by the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords in the case of Osborne versus the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants that the application of the funds of a trade union for the payment of salaries to the pledged representatives of Labour in tho House of Commons was illegal, and that a union could be restrained from so dealing with its funds. The decision naturally caused a considerable flutter among the English Trade Unions, as their political hopes are mainly dependent upon the Parliamentary representation of Labour, which had hitherto been financed without question by means of levies by the various unions on their respective members. In New Zealand the effect of the decision has been less acute, owing to the failure of Labour to organise as an independent Parliamentary force. But the example of Australia has revived the determination of the party in this country to fill this gap, and the question has been forced to the front by official action before the party has candidates in the field for the new enterprise. The Registrar of Industrial Unions has refused to pass the rules of unions which stipulate lor the power to use the union funds for political purposes. He ha 3 done this on the advice of the Solicitor-General that the reasoning of the House of Lords in Osborne's case applies to New Zealand and prevents the proposed application of the funds of the union. As the AttorneyGeneral stated in reply to Mr. Paul in the Legislative Council a few days ago that, while agreeing with the contention that the unions should be given a free hand in the matter, he considered the decision of tha House of Lords to be correct, we may take it that the legal position is beyond challenge. The law of New Zealand agrees with that of England in this respect, and bars the application of union funds for political purposes. The distinction which, Mr. M'Laren, M.P., has endeavoured to draw in this matter between a Trade Union and an Industrial Union must be held, in view of this consensus of legal authority, to be illusory. Both classes of union are, in the opinion of the Attorney- General and the Solicitor-General, equally barred. At the same time- the Attorney-General doss not appear to us to have grasped the fact that there is an essential distinction "between the two classes of union when one comes to consider^ the proposed enlargement of their freedom. A Trade Union is a purely voluntary body, and 1 as such there can be no harm in allowing it to devote its funds to political organisation as long as the rules so provide and the contributions of members who have joined and paid on a non-political basis are not diverted! to this purpose. But the position, of the Industrial Union, is very different. The object of such, a union is to secure for its members the benefits of the awards and agreements made under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration, Act. In order to spread those benefits as wide as possible the Arbitration, Court has declined to grant preference to unionists, except on ithe condition that their union opens its doors so wide 8(3 to admit every competent and respectable worker who is willing to pay the small contributions fixed by tine court. What would become of this provisioni if the union were free to make the support of a certain political platform a condition of membership? If the union were free 4o exclude on this ground, the universality upon which the court has ihdtherto made preference contingent would cease to exist. Clearly, therefore, if the court remained true to the principles which have hitherto governed its action, it would only grant preference to the members of non-political unions, and so the unions would lose as much in: one way as they would gain in another. Mr. Millar has perceived the difficulty which D-r. Findlay appears to have overlooked. Collective bargaining is, as he declared in the House of Representatives last night, the object of unkmism. "Unions," said' Mr. Millar, "contain all shades of political opinions, ajnd where preference operates it means forcing a man to contribute to a political organisation, with which h© does not sympathise." At present it looks as though the Industrial Unions would be faced with the alternatives "no politics or no preference," *nd it will be for Mr. M'LaTen and his friends to device an escape from the dilemma.