WAR REGULATIONS

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 33, 8 August 1934, Page 9

WAR REGULATIONS

LABOUR'S ATTACK/

SEDITIOUS STRIKES

POSITION OF [WO&KERS

Strong objection to the provisions of tho Polico Offences Amendment Bill, which gives tho Government power to deal with seditious strikes and lack-outs and also to prohibit tho circulation of subversive literature, was voiced by members of tho Labour Party in the House of Representatives last night, whon the Bill came up for second reading. The Bill was characterised as an attack on the working class, and the allegation was also mado that it was an attempt to prevent criticism of tho Government's actions. The debate on the second reading had. not concluded when the Honse adjourned at 10.30 o'clock.

Moving the second reading, the Minister of Justice (the Hon. J. G. Cobbo) said he desired to make it plain that all the powers which it was proposed to take under the Bill were contained in the provisions of the War Eegulations Continuance Act, 1920. It was proposed to repeal the great bulk of those provisions, retaining only those which the polico considered were absolutely necessary. to, the proposals in the Bill relating to seditious literature, tho Minister said that it would not bo an offence for any person to have such, literature in hia possession for his own use or personal information, but the importation and distribution of the literature was definitely prohibited. It. had been claimed that the object of reducing tho penalty for'oft'euees under the Act ,to imprisonment for three months whs to deny tho_ accused person the opportunity of securing trial by jury, but that was not tho /case. Thov War Eegulations Continuance Act provided for summary prosecution, despite the fact that the maximum penalty was a year's imprisonment, Ho felt sure that no member desired a set of circumstances to arise which would necessitate putting the provisions of the Bill into operation. Tho only prosecutions that had taken placo under the War Begulations Continuance Act were for the distribution of seditious literature, and there1 had been 22 convictions. "I am sure nobody wants to see seditious literature in circulation, "'said the Minister. '' This is a peaceful country, and we don't want any literature in circulation that might disturb peace and order." NOT A CRIMINAL OFFENCE. Mr. ¥. W. Schramui (Labour, Auckland East) said that the War Kegulations had been passed in wartime m tho interests of public safety, and even when they, were continued in .1920 it was never' intended that they should become' part of the permanent legislation. Their right place was, in the repeal legislation which tho Minister 'was bringing down later. There was ample power in the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act to deal with strikes and lock-outs, although one had never heard of a prosecution for an unlawful lock-out. It had never been intended that a strike should be made a criminal offence. The only commodity the worker had to sell was his labourpower, and surely if he disagreed with the terms that were offering he was in tha same position as tho man who refused to sell his land or the farmer who held his wool for two or _three seasons. Any breach of an award was punishable by a Magistrate, an^it was wrong and unnecessary to make the Bill the law of the country. The Bill was being brought in so that the Government could use its provisions against tho workers who were discontented with the present economic system. ■ _ The Minister of Finance (the Kt. Hon J. G. Coates): It is already law. Mr. Schramm: Tho War Eegulations are "also law, but the Government is bringing in legislation to repeal them it is not repealing those relating to the workers selling their labour-power. He said that tho Polico Offences Act <vave tho authorities power to deal with violence and lawlessness or the encouragement of disorder. Tho Crimes Ac*. dealt with sedition, and yet tho Government was bringing in a measure which should bo repealed. It had been stated that the Law Society had asked for the law.'butthero was not one resolution of tho Law Society asking tor the law to be made a permanent law pi tho country. Under the Customs Act there were powers to deal with the importation of seditious literature, and the Public Safety Conservation Apt "aye the Government wide, powers in timo of emergency. The present Bill cave tho Government power to call any strike a striko in an essential^ industry, although tho industry might not be regarded as essential in tho eyes of the public. That would bring the strike within tho four corners of the provisions of the Bill, and', thojrtnkowould then bo classified as seditious. It would be far better if tho Government directed its attention to thft rehabilitation of tho counry instead of depriving the workers of their only rio-ht—that-of selling their labour-power. Undep the Bill a worker, guilty of an offence was liable to three months' imprisonment. That meant that there was no *ight. of trial by jury. "A REACTIONARY MEASURE." "This is another of tho reactionary measures this Houso has' had to suffer as a result of tho dominance over Cabinet exercised by the Minister of Finance," declared Mr. J. A. Leo (Labour, Grey Lynn). "There is no doubt that tho community hap grown restive because of the abolition of the Arbitration' Court-and the extension of tho life of Parliament. Tho Minister of Finance was undoubtedly tho power behind the throne in breaking down the working-class conditions. Today no section of tho employees can register an agreement unless tho employers want them to. Mr. W. J. Polsou (Government, Stratford): And vico versa. Mr. Lee: Yes, I will give you a "cose oC the vico versa. A man in Auckland Was-getting £4 a week. The award was cancelled and he .was told ho ' would b© paid 23s a week or have no job. That was Winstone, Ltd. That was what has taken place as a result of the actions of this Houso, and the Minister of Finance was the power beliind the destruction of the Arbitration Court. ; Mr. Lee declared that they wero proposing to take away the right of trial '■•y jury because the Minister of Finance and tho Cabinet were waging a war on I ho people of New Zealand.- 'The Prime Minister had spoken a,bout a revolution being ono of tho ways of getting rid nf the Government, but tho Labour Party did not believo in cutting off heads. It believed in counting heads. "I see the member for Stratford is nodding," said Mr. Lee. "I think it wouM take a crosscut saw to cut off his head." Mr. Lee said there was no such thing as a seditious lock-out, and he defied the Minister to define it. |

Mr.. W. E. Parry (Labour, Auelcland Central) said that he would challenge tho Government to prove that they did not possess in existing legislation the powers the Bill conferred. The Minister: Tlion why object to it?

"I want to save the Minister and flic Government from looking ridiculous in the eyes of an intelligent public," .replied Mi> Parrj?, who asked

whether tho Bill had bocu producod to keep the House going, and to draw tho Labour Party?

Mr. Coatcs: Tho Labour Party hiis nuked tluit regulations should appear in legislation. '

"The Government is dropping just what it wants to drop," said Mr. Parry.. Ho reiterated that the-Bill had boen introduced to kill time while legislation was being prepared. Tho Government had taken power to prevent criticism in public. Tho Bill was foreign to tho English-speaking peoples.. Every mnn and every woman should havo the right to air a grievance, and the dental' of that right would provo dangerous. In the Old Country people had the free right to discuss their grievances in the open air. Recently persons who had boen talking at a street corner had received a sentence of three months' gaol, and & sentence 'of two years' curfew.

Mr. E. Semplo (Labour, Wellington Bast): Sent to bed at 7 o'clock, and tucked in.

Mr. Parry said that today the workers had no opportunity to negotiate with their employers to obtain a legal standing, and yet the Government was asking for power to declare the attitude of the workers,.! collectively, a seditious strike. He contended that the attitude of the wool growers in holding their wool for five years, and then acting in a concerted 'manner to receive a 25 per cent, increase was equal to a seditious strike as denned in the Bill. Was not the relief worker justified in protesting against the taking away of his right to givo expression to his grievances? Tho country should be very careful in taking away from the people the right of free speech. It was quito obvious that the Minister was asking for duplicate powers, and for the j Government to havo every possible! power. . I GAOLED FOR STRIKE-BREAKING. Mr. P. C. Webb (Labour, Bullcr) said that he received three months ou one occasion for trying to stop a strike, and he saw no provision in the- Bill for anything liko that. (Laughter.) A few Jtoui's after settling a strike on tho West Coast ho was charged with making a speech calculated to encourage tho men to go on striko again, and ho received a sentence of-three months. If there was a change of Government after the next election and tho Labour Party came in, farmers who refused to milk their cows because they did not secure a sufficient prico might bo prosecuted. He admitted that it would t be a very one-sided Government that would do that sort of thing. Persecution was never the way to sottlo disputes. Ho. and other members of the Labour Party had taken part in many fights on behalf of the workers of tho Dominion, but if thoy did so under tho provisions of tho Bill they-would be prosecuted. Personally ho would take tho same action again. "I havo-to comply with the law of my own conscience," ho said, "and I would act in the way I have acted in tho past." Ho maintained that anybody was justifiod in withholding his labour:power if he thought he was not getting a fair deal. Mr. Webs appealed to tho Government to drop such. a tantalising measure and get down, to fundamentals. "I don't want to go to gaol again," ho saidi "but I would still go .back to the old place if I had to. I wan); to tell the Minister of Justice that when a Labour Government comes into power we, will give his side /the utmost freedom of speech.^ Does the Minister realise that he is-going to drivo into gaol men who should be sitting round the same table as himself- trying to solve tho problems facing tho country?" Mr. W. E. Barnard (Labour, Napier) asked what was the danger the Government had to proceed against. The Government did not know seditious lock-outs; it only knew seditious strikes, and accordingly there would be no proceedings taken under the Bill for lock-outs. Members of Parliament for their own study, sometimes secured literature from countries where a Government based on principles different from those obtaining >in New Zealand was in power. Was it right that individuals, acting in a private capacity with a view to improving their knowledge, should be placed # within tho criminal laws of the country? He contended that the Government had a distrust of tho people. Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Labour, Christchurch East) said that perhaps the Government knew better than anybody elso that there would be: a necessity for the use of the law. The Houso of Commons would be ashamed, to put on the Statute Book legislation which New Zealand was trying to pass now. The Bill was/intended to operate against tho workers and against tho workers alone. No newspaper would be able to defend the workers. If tho Government wanted industrial peace in the country, ho would appear to them not to bo responsible for tho legislation. REPRESSIVE LEGISLATION. « - "Tho Minister has, stated that this is tho law already,"'said the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. M. J. Savage). "Is it not remarkable'that we should, after sitting here five weeks, bo passing a Bill that is tho law already'? Is this tho way we are to occuoy our time? What is the object of introducing the Bill? Hasn't the Government something bigger, -than this, more important than this? If tho Bill is the law already, why should the Govornment waste tho time of 80 members of Parliament repeating something already on tho Statute Book? Surely it is timo that legislation was passed that will benefit tho community." Mr. Savage said that history showed that repressive legislation had been brought about by anti-social legislation, created mainly by those who had the privilege and powers of govornment. Tho reasons, for laws of a repressive character were always found in economic conditions. It would be far bettor if the Government spent^its time removing tho conditions out of which grew the necessity for repressive measures. People did not talk violonco nist for the pake of hearing their voices. They did so because they wero dissatisfied with their conditions. . It was apparent that the Government was wasting tho timo of. tho Houso Until its Bills wero ready. .While, people wcro suffering, tho Government was repeating reptcssivo legislation. Mr. D. W. Coleinan (Labour, Gisborne) said that there, nmy- have been justification for tho; legislation as a war measure, but there- was no justi-. fication for it now:' '

The debate was interrupted by tho adjournment.