To Preserve Law and Order

Manawatu Times, Volume LV, Issue 6838, 20 April 1932, Page 7

To Preserve Law and Order

Legislation Before Parliament Another Bitter Labour Attack

Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Last Night. The Public Safety Conservation Bill was introduced by Governor-General’s Message into the House of Representatives to-day and was accorded urgency by 41 votes to 20. Explaining the measure, Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes said: “This bill is generally on tho lines of the Imperial Emergency Powers Act. of 1920. Its purpose is to enable the Governor-General to make regulations to preserve law and order in cases of emergency. Tho emergencies contemplated are civil strife on an extensive scale, and also emergencies clue to natural disaster, such as earthquake, fire or flood. In the event of any such emergency happening or being considered imminent, the Governor-Gen-eral, by proclamation approved in Executive Council, may proclaim a state of emergency. Such proclamation may bn general to the whole of New Zealand, or may bo limited in its application to the particular area or areas directly affected.

"When a stale of emergency exists, the Governor-General is empowered to make all such regulations,, as may be necessary for the preservation of life and the maintenance of law and order. Such regulations may be limited in the same manner as tho proclamation oi: an emergency to the locality particularly affected. All regulations made under this authority must be laid beforo Parliament at the earliest possible date and, if they are not. confirmed by resolution of both Houses within 14 days thereafter they cease to operate.

“Offences against the regulations are punishable on summary conviction (before a Stipendiary Magistrate only) by fine not exceeding £IOO or by imprisonment for not more than threo months, or by both such tine and imprisonment. “Clause 4 makes provision for tlio interval between tho timo of the happening of a natural disaster or outbreak of disorder and the issuo of the proclamation of emergency in respect thereof. During such interval tho senior officer of police in the locality at the time is directed to assume control and to issue all necessary instructions and orders for the protection of life and property and the maintenance ot order.

“Clause 5 indemnifies the Government and all persons acting under tho authority of the Act or of the regulations thereunder from civil liability for their actions done in good faith, but confers the right to compensation where private property is utilised for tho common necessity. 1 ’ The leader of tho Opposition (Mr. H. E. Holland): “Haven’t you all those powers at the present time?” Mr. Forbes: “I am informed not.”

The bill was read a first time. Moving the second reading of the bill, Mr. Forbes said lie desired to pay tribute to the manner in which the police had handled the Auckland situation. They were entitled to praise for the cool manner in which they had behaved and for the judgment they had shown. Auckland was now well in hand and it was possible for the Government to proceed to the passing of emergency legislation so as to strengthen the hands of the police in a time of necessity. There was need for the provision of a. rallying point in times of emergency, whether it was caused by civil commotion, fire, flood or earthquake. No exception could bo taken to the steps proposed, as it would be the desire of everyone that there should be adequate power for the maintenance of law and order. The provisions of the bill would apply only while there was the state of emergency created by. the Order-in-Council. As soon as the order was lifted the emergency powers would lapse. Mr. W. E. Parry (Auckland Central) said the Government’s legislation was making a deep wound in the hearts ot the people, and that wound would not be healed with the baton. The people of Auckland were not uncivilised. They were quite prepared to live decent, civilised lives, but they were entitled to work or to sufficient sustenance to keep the wolf from the door.

“I want the Government to understand that when we talk about sustenance wc want sustenance in money, and not food from a food depot,” Mr. Parry stated. “These people don’t want food tipped into a depot where they are degraded by coming along month after mouth like pigs to a trough.”

Air. Parry asserted that it was a. dangerous thing for a Government to pursue a policy that meant, empty cupboards, empty wardrobes and dismal hopes. It should set out to remove the bitter spirit that prevailed among the people. He did not wish his remarks to be interpreted as provocative. He desired the Government to understand exactly what was the mind and feeling of the people who had been embroiled in the disturbance. It was a pent-up feeling created by the prevailing conditions. He did not wish to discuss what had been responsible for the match being lit. The important thing was what should be done in the future. He appealed to tho Government to do something to heal tho ills that had caused the trouble.

Mr. J. A. Lee (Grey Lynn) said the significant feature of Thursday’s outbreak at Auckland had been the absence of premeditation, which went to show tho extraordinary explosiveness of the public mind at the present time. He had taken part in Thursday’s procession and he had never seen a more orderly procession. Twenty thousand people had endeavoured to get into a hall that could accommodate only 4000, and in two or three moments there had been disorder. It was then he had realised just what explosive sentiment was abroad. Ho had noted the pale, hungry, poorly-clad men in the procession. He warned the Government that the situation that had arisen could not be handled by the baton, but only by an

intelligent policy on the part of the Government. The Slate could not be built up on a spirit of bitterness and hostility. Young men and women were leaving the schools in thousands annually, and the Government was doing nothing for them. They were becoming a hard-baked generation. He repeated that the Government would not be able to overcome the

situation by means of the baton. Mr. Lee referred to Friday’s gathering in Karangahape road and declared that a sullen and bitter feeling against the Government had been fully in evidence. People whose windows had been broken had remarked to him: “The responsibility is the Government’s.” Mr. Lee attributed the first night’s disturbance to misadventure, but characterised the subsequent demonstrations as a definite gesture to tho Government. He paid tribute to the conduct of the police who, he said, with one or two exceptions had handled tho difficult situations tactfully. The man in blue had not earned tho enmity of tho civil population.

■ Mr. A. S. Richards (Eoskill) said there would be resentment at any suggestion that the great body of the unemployed had been in sympathy with the violent nature of the demonstration, but they could offer no apology for what had happened, because they realised that it had been caused by the suppression of the aspirations of the young people who had no employment. Mr. H. G. 1?. Mason (Auckland Suburbs) said it was the fear hanging over the people that they would bo deprived of tho essentials of lifo that had been responsible for tho Auckland outbreak. It was the duty of tho Government to dispel that fear and so prevent any recurrence of the trouble. Mr. Mason rc marked that the bill would make tho police absolute dictators. •Mr. W. J. Jordan (Manukau) said the Labour Party desired to see law and order observed. There was general dissatisfaction in the country with the Government, and the people would not bo batoned into submission. The people would not agree to starve. Ho challenged the right of the Government to remain in office and put into operation a policy of which tho majority of the people obviously disapproved. Mr. \V. J. Poison said the unemployed were plainly not responsible for tho outbreak in Auckland. He defended the actions of the special constables aud said they were entitled to the thanks of the Government and the people for what they had done under very difficult circumstances.

Air. F. W. Schramm (Auckland East) said the bill waived a number of oldestablished legal rights, and in the hands of a despotic Government it might be unjustly administered. The debate was continued when the House resumed at 7.30. Air. A. J. Stallworthy denied the allegations that the Government's policy was responsible for the disturbances. It was impossible to condone or excuse what had occurred in Auckland. He added that while the Labour members deplored the disturbances there was also the impression that they were excusing them. The Loader of the Opposition (Mr. H. E. Holland) said the proposals in tho Bill were provocative where they were not panicky. So far as he could ascertain all the necessary power was contained in the Crimes Act and the Police Offences Act, and it seemed the only additional power conferred by the Bill was that which enabled the Government to suppress the meetings of its political opponents. He characterised as stupid the action of the person responsible for prohibiting the meeting in tho Domain at Auckland on Sunday. It was ridiculous, he said, that people should be prevented from gathering in an open space. What would have happened if they had transferred their meeting to Queen street. He advised the Government that the safest plan would be to allow freedom of speech and not drive people underground with their grievances. The Labour party would not tolerate the suppression of the meetings it was holding to demand the resignation of the present Government. He asked who was to determine what meetings would bo lawful under the measure before the House.

Air. Holland criticised the provision in the Bill that tho ordinary rules of evidence were not to apply to the hearing of cases under this legislation, asserting that the rights which were granted to the burglar or even the child ravishcr were to be denied in the case of an alleged political offence, it would appear that the mere laying of a charge would be sufficient to secure a conviction. Air. Holland declared that window smashing and looting were unjustifiable and only provided the would-be dictators of the present day with an excuse for having recourse to far more drastic measures than would otherwise be the case.

Air. Coates referred to the resolution moved by Air. Parry at the Labour Conference calling for steps to bo taken to organise the unemployed, the civil service organisations and public opinion generally by way of a demonstration to compel the Government, to alter its present policy of reducing the standard of living. The Alinister insisted that the responsibility for the demonstration must rest with those who organised. He said the Government had been returned with a free hand and unless an endeavour was made to meet the present position those for whom the Labour members wore professing sympathy would suffer most. Ho predicted that if by any chance the Labour party gained possession of the Treasury benches they would be forced into the same attitude as that adopted by tho present Government and would find than the people who had put them ou

the Treasury benches would bo the first to rend them asunder. The Leader of the Opposition: “Is that what happened in your case?” Mr. Coates referred to statements in his possession which, he said, attributed to Mr. Lee remarks made at an Auckland meeting which included a statement that he (Mr. Coates) would not give 37s 0d for a cartload of unemployed. There was also a reference to punching him (Mr. Coates) between the eyes under certain circumstances. Mr. Lee: “That is incorrect.” Mr. Holland: “Who supplied those statements V ’ Mr. Coates said when Mr. Holianu at a Wanganui meeting had been asked about tho foolish story of the quarreJ between Mr. Forbes and himself (Mr. Coates), tho Leader of the Opposition had replied: “I never interfere in family quarrels.” The Minister declared such remarks lowered the tone of Parliament. There was a responsibility on members of Parliament. He continued to point out that nothing could be gained by direct action. The Labour speeches during tho debate had by no means been helpful. When the Minister resumed his scat Mr. Lee rose and said he had been misrepresented. Whoever had given the Minister the information regarding what he had said at Auckland had grossly and maliciously, misstated him. He had said that he had heard a member say that the unemployed were onJy worth 37s fid a cartload and had said that if he were unemployed and had heard that lie knew what action he would take. He had never mentioned the Minister of Public Works and would not have done so.

The second, reading debate was continued until beyond midnight. Replying, Air. Forbes said the shopkeepers and others wero entitled to protection and the Bill provided prompt and eifcctivo means of dealing with any situation that might arise. The Government had been blamed for what had taken place in Auckland, but he considered the blame should be taken by the Labour party. Air. Semple: “That is a cowardly statement.”

The Speaker: “You must withdraw the word cowardly.” Air. Semple: “Well, Sir The Speaker: “Do I understand you decline to withdraw?” Air. Semple: “I withdraw, Sir, but it is my opinion —. ” The Speaker: “Order, order!” Air. Semple: “When wc arc accused of breaking windows wc are entitled to t say something.” Air. Forbes said the Labour party had indulged in wild condemnation of tho Government. Those who gave blows should be prepared to accept blows.”

Air. F. Jones: “Wc arc not in a position to provide for the unemployed.” Labour members called for a division on the second reading which was carried by 4(1 to 20. The committee stage was commenced at 1.15 a.m. and the House was still sitting at 2 a.m.