COERCION BILL

Grey River Argus, 2 May 1932, Page 8

COERCION BILL

MR H. E. HOLLAND’S COMMENTS On Coalition Measure Speaking on the second reading of the Public Safety Conservation Bill, Mr H. E. Holland (Leader of the Opposition) said the recent huge procession in Auckland, with its 20,000 people struggling to get into a hall with accommodation for only 3,500, constituted the mass protest of the people against the policy of the Government. Out of that great crush, it was true, that trouble developed. What did they expect 1 YOUNG PEOPLE WITHOUT WORK Thousands of young people in this country had never been given an opportunity of engaging in useful and remunerative work. A Government capable of undertaking economic conditions and human requirements would recognise that these young people must be drafted into industry as they reached an occupational age. Instead of being placed in industry, however, many of the young people were left to stand on the street corners, with the inevitable result that under certain circumstances they were swept within the range of crowd psychology and under its influence would do things which under normal conditions they would not think of doing. WHAT ABOUT COMPENSATION. In times of disturbance there was always a criminal element in the crowds that gathered, an element that, would be keen to take advantage of every opportunity that presented itself. He wanted to ask Mr Stallworthy (who had just spoken) whether, since the damage that was done at Auckland was the direct result of the Government’s policy Mr Stall worthy: I do not admit that. Mr Holland said he wanted to ask Mr Stallworthy whether he would agree that the Auckland business people who suffered loss should receive compensation from the Consolidated Fund. Mr Stallworthy: I think it would ho fair if the Labour Party paid for it. Mr Holland said Mr Stallworthy could not he allowed to dodge the question. He had declared his sympathy with the shopkeepers whose windows had been broken and whose goods had been looted. Would he agree to these business men being compensated out of the Consolidated Fund! Mr Stallworthy: No, I would not. FANNING THE FLAMES. Mr Holland proceeded to say that he objected to the emergency nature of the measure. Its only effect would ho to fan into flame every smouldering discontent. May be that was its purpose. The Prime Minister in introducing the Bill, had spoken for only ten or fifteen minutes, and when Mr Parry, senior member for Auckland, presented the Auckland viewpoint no courtesy was shown to him from the Government benches. If it were not for the serious consequences that it might bring, the Bill would be utterly ridiculous. PANICKY AND PROVOCATIVE. I Where the proposed legislation was not panicky it was provocative. It gave the Government power to rule by Order-in-Council. The United section of the Government had filled pages of Hansard with denunciations of the Reform Government’s efforts to rule by Order-in-Council.. The Government sensed the development likely to result from the enactment of its own legislation affecting salary and wage reductions, pensions, and unemployment. The idea was apparently to bludgeon the workers into the acceptance of coolie conditions. POWERS ALREADY HELD. He reminded the Prime Minister that the Crimes Act gave him practically all the powers he, was asking for in the Bill before the House. Sections 07 to 71 conferred powers for the suppression of riots; sections 94 to 100 provided for cases of treason and conspiracy; sections 101 to 105 applied to unlawful assemblies, riots, and breaches of the peace; section 106 applied to the riotous destruction of buildings; and in sections 115, 118, and 119 there was full power to deal with the more or less nebulous offences that wore called seditious.

WHEN THE KAISER WAS LIBELLED. Under section 120 of the Crimes Act there was even power to deal with persons held to have libelled the sovereign of a foreign State. It was under a somewhat similar enactment that Jack Williams, a British Socialist, was once sent to prison for an oral attack on the Kaiser -when that monarch was a visitor to London. THE POLICE OFFENCES ACT. If the Prime Minister should be fearful that ho had not sufficient powers under the Crimes Act, additional powers were conferred under the provisions of the Police Offences Act. Section 3, paragraph (2) dealt with rioting, and section 6 with the wilful destruction of property. He could not find that the Bill before the House conferred any power which the Government did not already hold, with perhaps the exception of the power to suppress the political meetings of its Parliamentary opponents- That, power the Public Safety Conservation Bill undoubtedly conferred. Mr Forbes: Rubbish. Mr Holland pointed out that at

Auckland on Sunday a meeting had been foolishly and stupidly suppressed. THE SAFETY VALVES. Public meetings in the great open spaces were the safety valves of the nation on every critical occasion. The British and Australian authorities had recognised this for long years with respect to Hyde Park, Sydney Domain, Yarra Bank, Adelaide Botanical Gardens, etc. In many other countries it was recognised that danger disappeared when people could meet to voice their grievances. If an attempt should be made to suppress public meetings, the widespread opposition to the Government would be driven underground and the dangerous nature of the present situation would be accentuated. The utmost freedom of expression should be allowed to prevail. The Labour Party would not tolerate interference with the meetings of protest that were now being held. Fifty per cent of the people who voted for the Government at last election were now recognising that they had been let down, and many of them were now appealing to the Labour Party to save them from the consequences of their own voting. Amongst those who were now demanding the resignation of the Government were thousands of erstwhile supporters of the Coalition. Without a shadow of doubt, the Bill conferred power on the Government to make Ordcrs-in-Council suppressing any meeting whatever in New Zealand. Where would the line be drawn? Who was to determine whether or not a meeting was lawful? One of the rights insisted upon by British people throughout the world was that of freedom of expression. WHAT THE BILL IMPLIED. He proposed to draw attention to some of the provisions of the Bill. Sub-clause (2) of clause 3 laid it down that regulations made by the Order-in-Council might apply to all New Zealand notwithstanding that a pro* clamation of emergency may have been issued only in respect of a limited area or limited areas. What did that mean? It meant that regulations made to meet a state of emergency in Wellington could be applied to all the rest of New Zealand without any proclamation of emergency there. Subclause (4) of clause 3 contained an amazing sentence. It gave the Court power to either admit or disregard any evidence whatever. It removed from the accused person all the freedom hitherto given by the application >f the rules of evidence. 1 THE GOVERNMENT’S DISCRIMINATION. The burglar, murderer, or child ravishcr was rightly protected by the rules of evidence, but the man politically charged was to have no such protection. Any evidence, no matter how irregular, was to be admitted at the discretion of the Magistrate. This would mean that in every prosecution the position would be loaded up against the person charged. As in the war years, it would only be necessary to lay a charge and a conviction would be guaranteed. Clause 5, which had been scathingly exposed by the member for Auckland East, was not in the British Act. PRINCIPLES NOT COPIED. There were provisions in the British Act not included in the Bill then before the House. For instance, the British Act provided that nothing in its clauses should be construjed to authorise the making of any regulation imposing any form of compulsory military service or industrial conscription. Furthermore, a proviso in the same Act laid it down that no regulation should make it an offence for any person or persons to take part in a strike. There was another proviso that no such regulations should alter any existing procedure in criminal cases or confer any right to punish by fine or imprisonment without trial. Let the Prime Minister explain why he omitted these provisions from his Bill, and why he included other provisions which were not in the British Act. WINDOW SMASHING AND LOOTING. A good deal of reference had been made to window smashing and looting at Auckland, and he had already said that this was the' direct outcome ot the Coalition’s policy. Window smashing and looting was no remedy for the existing evils arising out of the Government’s policy. That method inflicted loss on people in no way responsible for the present situation, and provided the would-be dictators of to-day with an opportunity to enforce repressive measures. It appeared to him that in shaping his present policv the Prime Minister had copied the features of Bismarck’s Exceptional Law of 1878. REVERSAL OF POLICY WANTED. There was no remedy for the existing situation except by the provision of work for men and women now unemployed, and the payment of sustenance where work was not provided. Sustenance must take the form of a money payment, and not orders on a depot. The reason why there was such a widespread demand for the resigna- j tion of the Government was that the Primo Minister and his followers had broken their pledges to the people. The Government should face the electors without delay. PUBLIC MEETINGS. In the committee stage of the Bill, Mr Holland declared that he would not for a moment countenance any veto of Labour Party meetings. He said that if the Bill passed he would speak in public irrespective of the consequences, for he held that freedom of speech was a principle that could not be surrendered. At a still later stage Mr Forbes intimated that there was no intention to interfere with the political meetings of the Government’s opponents.