“NO COMPULSION”

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 21853, 25 October 1945, Page 6

“NO COMPULSION”

OFFERS OF WORK OPPOSITION DOUBTS AMENDMENT LOST (P.R.) WELLINGTON, Oct. 25. Although the Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. P. Fraser, gave an assurance that the provisions of the Employment Bill were on a purely voluntary basis and that there was no power to resort to compulsion in direction to work, members of the Opposition were insistent in the committee stage of the bill in the House of Representatives last evening that an amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. S. G. Holland, be written into tne measure to make the position absolutely secure. It was argued that, if the Government were sincere in its desire not to use compulsion, there could be no objection to the amendment. The amendment moved by Mr. Holland was: “Nothing in this Act shall be construed .to empower or authorise the Minister or Director of Employment or any other officer of the department to compel any worker to accept any employment or to compel any employer to accept the services of any worker.” Margin of Three Voles

On a division the amendment was defeated by 37 votes to 34. Mr. Holland referred to the subclause providing for .the placing of persons in employment anu said that, in some special circumstances, it might be possible to direct labour compulsorily and the amendment was designed to remove that possibility. In recent speeches on the bill there had been no difficulty in detecting the thought in the minds of some Government members—that it would be proper, even in peacetime, to direct labour in certain circumstances. Two instances were hospitals and dairy factories. Mr. Fraser said there was no doubt about the matter at all. He was assured by a law draftsman that no doubt existed, and it was quite clear that there was nothing in the bill to empower the Minister or any other officer to use compulsion. Mr. W. J. Poison (Opp., Stratford) said he was not prepared to accept the assurance given by the Prime Minister. If Government members were so clear in their own minds that there could be no compulsion, .the amendment should be accepted. “Political Stunt” Mr. T. H. McCombs (Govt., Lyttelton) said .the whole thing had been put up as a political stunt to persuade peopie that tne Opposition was on the side of the worker. Mr. W. A. Bodkin (Opp., Central Otago) said the Opposition painful recollections of accepting the assurance of the minister in charge of a bill that the bill contained nothing sinister and thi s time it wanted to make the position absolutely secure. On one occasion it had been stated that there was nothing sinister in an amendment to the Land and Income Tax Bill. The Prime Minister said that, to difpel any possible doubt —though he did not believe there was a doubt—he would have the matter looked into by the law officers and, if necessary, an amendment made at a later stage. It would be the easiest thing possible for the Government to withdraw all compulsory regulations, but he would urge members to show a sense of responsibility and consider how it would affect the freezing works, the dairy factories and the boys who had overseas for hospital treatment. There had been no objection from the workers to the withdrawal of some of the compulsions. The objections came from the employers, who said they would be seriously embarrassed. . . After further discussion the division was taken.