PARLIAMENT The Strike Bill: Labour Criticism Of Communists

Greymouth Evening Star, 4 September 1947, Page 5

PARLIAMENT The Strike Bill: Labour Criticism Of Communists

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, Sept. 3. . Criticism of Communists by Government members was a feature of this evening’s discussion of the strike ballots cflause by the House of Representatives. The second reading debate on the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill was unfinished when the House adjourned.

The original Bill had % had some chance of being but the Minister of Labour had removed from it the only means by which its predominant objective—that no strike should take place without an effectual secret ballot—could be achieved, said Mr T. C. Webb (Opposition, Rodney). Mr Webb said it would come as a shock to the public that the secret ballot was not compulsory under the amended Bill. The Minister had said that under the existing law strikes were illegal. That provision had been in the law for the last 40 years. The Bill would make that provision more a dead letter than ever if that were possible.

Aftermath of War

Mr R. M. Macfarlane (Government, Christchurch Central) said that ever since the end of the war New Zealand, like other countries, had experienced industrial disturbances. Many workers believed that after the war there was to be a new world, and they were unsettled. It also had to be admitted that there were people who were wreckers. An Opposition voice: Who are they? Mr G. H. Mackley (Opposition, Wairarapa): ■ But they have aligned themselves with this Government. Mr Macfarlane said the wreckers believed in transforming society, not by democracy, but by continuous turmoil.

Mr F. W. Doidge (Oppostion, Tauranga): Are you referring to Communists? Mr Macfarlane: I am. An Opposition member: Was not the Minister one at one time? Mi' Macfarlane said the need for the Bill had been brought about by the activities of these people. The Bill aimed at putting the control of industrial affairs in the hands of the rank and file of the trade union movement if they cared to exercise it.

Mr K. J. Holyoake (Opposition, Pahiatua) said the familiar pattern of the Government’s handling of industrial troubles was for the Government to start by taking a very strong, belligerent attitude. Then came threats by militants —whether they were Communists, he did not know—and the Government weakened. More threats were followed by an abject surrender by the Government. This Bill had been produced by the Minister as his atomic .bomb, but forces outside the House had been brought to bear on him with the result that he had been compelled to remove the atomic charge: He thought no Government member was entirely happy about the Bill, which, was now no more than political window-dressing designed to save the Government’s face.

Amendments from Caucus

The Minister of Works (Mr R. Semple) said it was untrue to say the Bill had been altered as a result of pressure from outside the House. The amendments came from the Government caucus. “No industrial gangster has ever forced me into doing anything against my judgment,” said Mr Semple. There was in New Zealand, as in other countries, a type of individual who thought only of wrecking the nation, said Mr Semple. Such persons entertained the crazy idea that out of the wreckage of the existing order they could develop the dictatorship of the proletariat, btit New Zealand wanted no dictatorships, whether from above or from below, for they meant the end of democracy and the beginning of tyranny.. No- - strikes were wain-anted in New Zealand under present conditions, and the Bill offered the people a safety valve. The Minister said he personally would go further than the Bill and give the wives of workers the right to vote on whether their breadline should be broken by strikes. ,Mr W. S. Goosman (Opposition, Piako): Is the Minister going to move that as an amendment

Mr Semple said wives and mothers suffered most from strikes and they had as much right to determine whether a strike should be as had a handful of demagogies.

Mr Doidge: Would it not be a •simple matter to make it impossible for Communists to hold office in unions?

Mr Semple said such a course had not been considered.

Mr J. K. McAlpine (Opposition, Selwyn) said the Bill in its present form was innocuous. The Minister had capitulated because unions which had previously condemned him and called for the resignations of the Minister of Works and Labour now supported the Bill. Mr D. W. Coleman (Government, Gisborne): That is not correct. Mr McAlpine said it should be made impossible for a minority to call a strike.

“Will Not Stop Strikes”

Mr M. Moohan (Government, Petone) said he did hot think the legislation would stop strikes. The Government had done everything possible in the last 11 years to set in motion machinery to enable grievances to be discussed at their source, but there was still a section prepared to strike. The Bill was a step in the direction of democracy in industry, but the next step was to make it possible for those engaged in industry to share in its management. Mr J. • Pv. Marshall (Opposition, Mount Victoria) said the noncontentious clauses of the Bill could do as much to promote industrial harmony as could the secret ballot. The appointment of deputy-judges should minimise delays in hearing disputes and thus remove one obstacle to industrial harmony. It was essential that those selected for the 'appointments should be chosen for their impartiality, strength of character, and knowledge and experience of the law. If senior members of the legal profession with the necessary qualifications could not be found to accept appointment then younger men of ability, should be chosen rather: than older men who were less qualified to act. Mr Marshall said militant dictatorial trade union leaders would not be persuaded to hold ballots to which they were opposed unless persuasion was reinforced by penalties for failure to hold ballots. At present the Bill, in the words of Macbeth, was full of sound signifying nothing. Unless effective penalties were provided, as they could welbbe,

there was danger that useless ballots would merely encourage direct action and lawlessness, which would lead to disaster.