AMENDMENT BILL DEBATEDPOLITICAL USE OF TRADE UNION FUNDS

Greymouth Evening Star, 29 September 1950, Page 3

AMENDMENT BILL DEBATED—POLITICAL USE OF TRADE UNION FUNDS

WELLINGTON, September 28 (P.A.). —Led by the former Minister of Labour (Mr A. McLagan), Opposition members staged a full-scale debate on the Political Disabilities Removal Amendment Bill in the House of Representatives this evening. In their attack on the bill they claimed that its purpose was to cripple the Labour Party financially. The bill provides that the application of union funds to political purposes must be sanctioned by a majority of the full membership of a union instead of a simple majority of votes cast in a ballot as at present., The Minister of Labour (Mr W. Sullivan), who moved the second reading, said the bill would let members of unions decide for themselves by a majority vote just what should be done with their own funds. He indicated that it would be amended in the committee stages to allow trade unions or public service organisations membership of which is voluntary to decide on political use of their funds by a simple majority of the valid votes recorded in a ballot.

After nearly six hours’ discussion the bill had not passed the second reading. What Mr Savage Did

“This bill restores what the late Michael Joseph Savage applauded in 1936,” said Mr Sullivan moving the second reading. “It does not go as far as the National Party’s policy indicated, but it leaves members of unions to decide for themselves by a majority vote just what should be clone with their own funds.” He added that there was a ruling in England that no registered trade union had power to include in its rules a provision to make contributions to political parties. In New Zealand the 1936 act made such contributions possible by a vote of a majority of a union’s members. However there were many people inside trade unions who did not want to contribute to any political party. Amendment In 1948 By Labour legislation in 1948 a resolution to contribute to the funds of a political party was deemed to have been passed if a majority of the votes cast at the ballot was in favour of it. That amendment was made by the Labour Government to get easy funds for political purposes said Mr Sullivan.

The bill now restores legislation as it existed in 1936. There was still nothing in the bill to stop union members voting funds for political purposes, but a majority decision of all members was needed. Many trade union members took strong exception to any part of union funds being used for political purposes, and members should have the right to decide by majority vote whether they should contribute to the funds of a political party. There were also members who objected to the payment of high affiliation fees.

Mr Sullivan said he believed that the main object of an industrial union should be to work for the betterment of conditions for its members, and for the betterment of the industry with which it was associated and to care for the interests of all members in that particular organisation. Unions could be a power for good in the country without having to worry about any political party. Any objection to the bill which might be raised by Opposition members could only be made because they feared they might lose something in political contributions. The bill would guard the rights of union members, and as compulsory unionism existed a minority in a union had no right to commit the rest on what use was to be made of the union’s funds. Mr Sullivan said that there was a number of unions which had not paid their affiliation fees for 1950 to the Federation of Labour. Point Of Order Raised

Mr T. H. McCombs (Opposition, Lyttelton), raising a point of order, said that that information was irrelevant to the bill, as was the question of whether unions’ funds were contributed to the Federation of Labour. Mr Sullivan: It has a very vital bearing on the bill. Mr M. Moohan (Opposition, Petone): It has nothing to do with it. Mr Sullivan said that levies from union funds were made to the Federation of Labour, which contributed to the funds of the Labour Party. Opposition Voices: No. Mr Sullivan said that funds contributed to the Federation of Labour were in turn paid to the political funds of the Labour Party. Mr Moohan: No. Unions pay their political donations to the Labour Party, not to the Federation of Labour. The Minister of Health (Mr J. T. Watts), producing a balance-sheet of the Federation of Labour, said that the financial connection between the Labour Party was shown by the fact that the federation last year gave £l5OO to the Labour Party. Mr McLagan said the bill did not affect the Federation of Labour, wiiich did not come within the scope of the legislation which the bill amended. The federation was not a society of more than 15 public servants nor a registered trade union, and the main act was limited to such bodies. , Mr W. A. Sheat (Government, Patea) said the federation, even if not a registered union, was a federation of such unions. It was a channel through which unions affected by the bill made payments to the Labour Party. Mr McLagan: No. Payments are made direct. ivir r. “lit (Opposition, Grey Lynn) said thaut.... iLderation of Labour was very similar to the Employers’ Federation. If the Employers’ Federation or any other body had surplus funds it could subscribe to any cause it chose to support. The Prime Minister (Mr Holland) said that the Federation of Labour last year not only gave £l5OO to the Labour Party, but also contributed £llB 10s to the Labour Party’s election campaign expenses and £l9 2s 6d to the Southern Cross election campaign. That money came from affiliation and capitation fees paid by unions, and it was money contributed to a political purposes. Mr Speaker Rules

Ruling on the point of order, Mr Speaker- said that the act to be amended dealt with funds voted by trade unions for political purposes. Questions had been raised dealing with affiliation and .capitation fees and also with donations. The difficulty was that there was no definition of political purposes or political objects. He was not prepared to interpret the main statute on that point, but surely no society could be prevented from affiliation with an organisation of similar societies for common purposes, The Federation of

Labour, like the Employers’ Federation, collected affiliation and capitation’ fees. Those fees were for purposes of the group. The fact that the Federation of Labour made donations to a political party no doubt indicated that its funds had been used for political purposes. A donation from a union would be a donation to a political purpose. However, Mr Sullivan had* been out of order in referring to- the question of affiliation, although a passing reference might have been in order. “Insuperable” Difficulties Mr McLagan said that the bill did not completely prevent the collection of political funds, but it set out to make the difficulties of so doing insuperable. Why was there no similar legislation for company shareholders, whose funds were sometimes given to political purposes against their wish? If Mr Sullivan had been genuinely concerned with unionists who objected to political contributions, he could have provided for them to contract out of any such donations. Mr McLagan said that the bill did go back to the wording used by Mr Savage ih 1936, but not to the intention of that legislation, which clearly was that donations could be sanctioned by a simple majority of the votes cast. The bill sought to impose a form of majority which was not required in any other ballot in the country. Why should a non-voter be counted as voting against a proposal? Mr McLagan said that many companies contributed to the National Party funds without first taking a vote of shareholders. It was well known that many professional men and businessmen had been approached and assessed so much as a political levy. Mr J. McAlpine (Government, Selwyn) said that it had been alleged that the Government was not prepared to treat Labour supporters in the same manner as National supporters, but the . one fundamental difference had been forgotten—there was compulsory membership of unions, and membership in companies was voluntaryHe added that Mr Cotterill, Mr F. Jones, Mr McCombs, Mr Mason, Mr Nash, Mr Parry, Mr Semple and Mr Tirikatene had voted in 1936 for a bill similar to that now before the House, and they should vote for the present bill. , Mr Hackett said that the fact tnat Mr McAlpine had had a protest against the bill from the clerical workers, who were among the most conservative trade unionists m the country and were not affiliated to the Federation of Labour, indicated the general reaction to the bill. “Compulsion” On Workers Mr Sheat said he believed that no complaints had been received from shareholders in companies about funds being contributed for political purposes, but there was no Government members who had not received complaints from workers who supported the National Party that they had been compelled through their unions to contribute to the funds Oi the Labour Party. Most, of the National Party’s funds were collected in small amounts given voluntarily. Mr R. M. Macfarlane (Opposition Christchurch Central) said that it would have been only fair and logical for the Government to have brought down first a bill to give trade unionists an opportunity to say whether they would prefer voluntary or compulsory unionism. If the Government was logical it should include a clause in the bill giving shareholders m companies the right to decide whether those concerns should contribute to the funds of a political party. Mr H. Johnstone (Government, Raglan) said that a member of the Associated Society oi Railway Servants had told him he was afraid to vote on an issue for making a political contribution lest union officials discover how he had voted. Mr P. G. Connolly (Opposition, Dunedin Central): Just humbug. Mr J. B. Kent (Opposition, V/estland) said that local bodies through their membership of the Employers’ Federation contributed to the funds of a certain political party. Local bodies represented workers and employers and should not contribute public funds to one side or the other. “Workers should not have to pay to sharpen the razor to cut their own throats,” he said.