The Labour Party,The Alliance of Labour,and

Maoriland Worker, Volume 12, Issue 294, 18 October 1922, Page 8

The Labour Party,The Alliance of Labour,and

On the introduction of the Parliamentary Committee's Report recommending rejection of the P. and T. Officers' Association's petition praying. for the right of affiliation with the Alliance of Labour, Mr. H. E. Holland (Euller), leader of the Parliamentary Labour Part3 r moved that it be referred back for favourable consideration. This was lieavily defeated, tho ..'•Liberals with one or two exceptions voting with the Tories against Labour. 'In the course of the debate the following Labour speeches were delivered. Mr. H. E. Holland said: —

I am surprised that the Committee did not recommend to the Government favourable consideration for the petition of the Post and Telegraph Officers' Association. I wish, to cover the ground of the petition as briefly as I can. The petition sets forth that the P. and T. officers, having suffered many substantial grievances in a comparatively short time, and feeling that fair representation on fair questions no longer carried with it the sympathetic consideration the merits of such questions deserved, decided that it '.was essential in the interest?! of the members v.'ho are all employees of the P. and T. Department to strengthen the organisations, and with this object in view it was decided to take a ballot as to joining up with the Alliance of Labour. It is pointed out that ample time was given for discussion; of the proposal. Meetings were held in every important centra, and at those meetings officials of the Association were present to give explanation and to answer questions. .This work of explanation and discussion occupied six weeks. Ballot papers were issued on March IS of this year and were made returnable on March 30. But, the petition states, after the-, ballot papers had been despatched to' the voters the Postmaster-General issued a statement, by circular message delivered to each officer and through the Press Association, which message closed by j STRONGLY URGING EVERY MEMBER' I

of the Post and Telegraph Association to vote. I want members of the House to note that the Hou. the Post-raaster-General, no doubt acting along the lines of policy laid down by the Government, urged the members of the Post and Telegraph Association to vote, which must have conveyed to every member of the Association that the Government was in favour of their having the opportunity to vote. If it did not mean that. it. did not mean anything at all. Now, in order that the .Minister's statement might have full effect, the date for the return of the.ballot papers was ■extended to April 4. This was done by the Executive of the Association. The Association, it is quite clear, did not wish to have the issue determined on a Catch vote, but desired to obtain —in their own language—"the clearest possible expression from the membership." The ballot was taken, and 6.330 valid votes were cast. Of those, 4*379 were cast for affiliation and 1973 against. That gave a majority of 2 40C in favour of affiliation with the Alliance of Labour. In other words, it .showed that 60 per cent, ot the members of the service organised into the Post and Telegraph Officers Asociation were in favour of linking. up with the Alliance of Labour. Immediately after their decision, the first public protest that was made came

THAT REMARKABLE CONCERN which calls itself the Welfare League, the work of which is largely mischievous agitation; which has no real membership; which would not dare to place before the people of this country the sources o£ its income or the details of its expenditure. It consists of a few wealthy men, one or two lawyers, and two or three paid agitators —if. you use the term in its most extreme form. Its representatives came before the Government demanding that the Post and Telegarpli men should not be allowed to give effect to the decision of the ballot in which the Postmaster-General had advised them to vote. The Prime Minister, ignoring altogether the fact that the Post-master-General had urged the members of the Association to vote, replied to the Welfare League agitators that the Government would not tolerate the Postal workers giving effect to the decision of the ballot. Now, the Post and Telegraph people, believing, and rightly believing, that they had a. constitutional right to affiliate with any lawful organisation,-j took legal advice. The legal advice they obtained went to show that with the exception of miliar technical points the affiliation of the Association with the Alliance of Labour was 1 * •• , ■ '

PERFECTLY LAWFUL AND CONSTITUTIONAL ACT." and that the Alliance of Labour was itself a lawful organisation. The Rt. Hon. Mr. Massey: Do you mind saying* whose opinion that-was? Mr. Holland: I have not the name of the counsel, but I am sure that the counsel consulted was a very high legal authority. Mr. McCallum: Mr. P. J. O'Regan, was it not?

Mr. Holland: No; I am informed one of the counsel consulted was Mr. Gray, K.C. I am not attacking the J Postmaster-General personally; I take it that the Postmaster-General was following out the policy of the Government, and it is the Government I want to deal with more than with the Postmaster-General as an individual Minister. The Postmaster-General, however, as political head of the Department, had meanwhile written to the Association forbidding the affiliation. In doing so he took steps to see that every employee of the Department received and read his communication. Here is an extract from the Postmaster-General's letter: '"Obviously an Association, whose members are officers of the State, pledged to serve the whole of the public, cannot be allowed to be allied with an outside organisation. The question is therefore matter for serious consideration by individual members of the service, and each and every officer should realise that the efficiency of the Department, and probably his own j personal welfare, depend upon the j next step being taken in th? right di-j rection." There is a direct threat there. I want to put it seriously to j the Government that when the Gov- j eminent take up that attitude, they are doing something similar to what | has been I

DONE IN GERMANY. especially under the Exceptional Laws of 1878. Following upon this notification, the Postmaster-General was asked to say wherein his or the Government's authority lay to place an official embargo on the affiliation of the Association with the Alliance of Labour. This the Postmaster-General either could not or would not do. As the outcome of its deliberation the executive of the Association definitely advised the Postmaster-General that they would respect all instructions hased upon legal authority, but, failing such authority, they would not, and indeed could not, surrender any lawful or constitutional right of their members. Further they drew, the Postmaster-General's attention to Ariicle 427 of the Treaty of Versailles, which sets forth that among the principles which seem to the High Contracting Parties to be of special and urgent importance is "the right of association for all' lawful purposes by the employees'as well as the employers." Now, the signature of the Prims Minister is affixed to the treaty which contains that clause. And yet to-day the " Government is violating the Treaty of Versailles signed by the Prime 'Minister on behalf of this country, with respect to industrial workers in a Government department. I should be justified in asking tho Prime Minister whether, when'he was signing that Treaty, he made a mental reservation with respect to Government employees in New Zealand? Did he mean it to apply only to the Germans and the French, and NOT TO THE,BRITISH WORKERS

in his own country? The prayjsr of the petitioners is to this effect: "Your petitioners therefore pray that the Postmaster-General be instructed to J procure the legal authority under which he has, in the name of the' Government, prohibited the completion of the affiliation of the Post and Telegraph Officers' Association with the New Zealand Alliance of Labour, and, failing his doing so, he be instructed to withdraw in toto his letter of the 7Ui April,'l922, in which he advised the Association that affiliation with the .Alliance of Labour could not be allowed." In the face of all the facts, I cannot understand why the Committee did not recommend this petition for favourable consideration. It is quite clear that the Government acted outside the law; it is quite clear that this is a question of constitutionalism. Before the Committee, as the Post-master-General Mr. Combs presented his case %vith very, great ability and with a "clearness of lang- ■ uage and a general concisesess that | is rarely displayed by witnesses before Committees of the House. When Mr. Combs was giving his evidence the Postmaster-General interjected, and said in effect,. "You are perfectly within your legal rights in joining up with the Alliance of Labour;- why don't you go ahead and do It?" The Postmas-ter-General made the admissfbn there that the Post and Telegraph members

were quite within tlieir leg'ai rights in joining up with this Alliance of Labour. The reason, why they did not go ahead and do it was obvious. They had been communicated with. by the Minister warning them they must not do it and conveying -the implication that .if they did affiliate their * men would be DISMISSED FROM THE SERVICE.

Wbren the Minister asked why did they not proceed with the affiliation, I put to the Minister this question: "1C they affiliate, and then proceed by constitutional means to test- the legality of your embargo, will you undertake that no men in the service will be dismissed because. of the affiliation, until the Court's decision has been given?" That was in effect the question I put to the Minister. The Hon. Mr. Coates: That .is not quite the question you put. Mr. Holland: That is ihe question; I made a note of it at the time. The reply which came from the Minister was: "1 will not anake that uiule-rfcak-. Ing, nor will I permit it to he made." Now, there is the position. The Alliance of Labour is a perfectly constitutional and strictly legal organisation :"\ the Prime Minister will admit-■ that j readily. Every man who has had any doings with the Alliance of Labour will frankly admit that ihe Alliance of Labour does not exist to create disimtes, but on the contrary to prevent them. The Prime Minister iiiinself has taken part with the leaders of the Alliance of Labour in effecting settlements of disputes; he has even had his photograph taken with some of them. . I repeat that it Is a perfectly legal organisation, and the Post and Telegraph Officers have a perfectly! lawful right to join with it, and yet i the Government of the day forbids it. Apart from the petition to this House,} there is only one way in which -the i legality of the Government's actioii j could be tested; and that is before the Law Courts of this country. The legality of the Government's ' action can only be tested if the affiliation takes place, but the Government practically say, "We will hot allow you to take the steps that will enable you to test the legality of the Government's action/ . IT IS THREATENED

In the plainest language: "If you do affiliate, even for the purpose of testing the Government's action, then your men will be dismissed." And if they arc dismissed, even if the Courts €lecide in favour of the 'affiliation, what would become of the dismissed men? "What would become of their superannuation rights, and all the rest of-it? I submit that the position which has been created by the Government is unthinkable. It places tti« Government and the Postmaster-Gen-eral as the representatives of the Government in the position of. proclaiming that they are above the laws of this country. The Government says to the members of the -Postal Service: "We admit you now have this legal right, but we say that we have the right to deprive you of it. Wo have the right to declare null and void the rights which the constitution and the laws- of yoxir country confer upon you." Let the Government say whether that-is not the position' they are taking- up at the present time. Tho Government make a scrap of paper of the constitution, and they make a scrap of paper of the Treaty of Versailles so far as that particular clause of it which I have quoted is "affected. Not only did the situation arise as' I have described it, but in due time we found a coxmter petition being presented. That counter petition- was undoubtedly a Departmental creation. We found this counter petition beingreleased in every office simultaneously. It was circulated -by the Chief Postmasters, Superintendent and Senior Officers, and

THE GOVERNMENT MOTOR-CAR was used to take it round to different places. At one stage we were told that one of the objections taken by the Postmaster-General and the Government to the affiliation was the fact that very many juniors had voted when the ballot was taken. Now, only 45 per cent, of the juniors had the right to vote in the P. and T. Ballot, but when the counter petition came along, which I submit was the Department's petition, 100 per cent, of the juniors had the right to sign it; ant? in a number of cases the Senior Officers saw to it that the juniors did sign the petition. As this discussion goes on we will be able to show from communications from the different centres the methods that were 'used to compel—l think "compel" Is not, too strong a word—signatures to the counter petition. I myself personally ', advised juniors to sign the counterpetitions because they told mc if they did not sign it they feared their iobf t

would be gone. Mr. Comb.?, when he appeared before the Committee, had with him a multitude of letters indicating the pressure that was employed. He offered to bring the evidence of the writers of those letters before • the Committee if it was desired. May I suggest that an affiliation with another lawful organisation has nothi ing whatever to do with the Minister-in-charge of the Department? It is a Stupid suggestion that because men should affiliate with another lawful organisation their loyalty to their Department would be shaken. How could it be so? I can understand the man who does not know how to be loyal to a Department himself, the man who would be capable of betraying any trust placed in him, saying, that if these men joined up with the Alliance of Labour they might betray their trust as public servants. If a man was likely to betray a trust because he linked up with an organisation of his honest fellow men in this country, how should that change his loyalty to his Department? The Post and Telegraph servants have for long years

PROVED THEIR LOYALTY

to the Department and to the country to which they belong. They have proved "it by their service. How many Post and Telegraph men have betrayed even the stupid secret;-, that belong to Hi 9 Department? The number is almost nil, and the Ministers know it, and to suggest that their joining- up with another organisation of honest men would make them dishonest men is an insult to every Post and Telegraph officer and an insult to the men with whom they proposed to join up. Included in the membership of the Alliance of Labour aro thousands of returned soldiers, and yet the Government is prepared to say that if the Post and Telegraph men join up with those returned soldiers it will make them dishonest. The Rt. Hon. Mr. Massey: No, that has never been said. . 'Mr. Holland: That is the whole point in the argument: the Post and Telegraph officers will become dishonest and their loyalty will be shaken i£ they join up with the membership 0? the Alliance o£ Labour. The Rt. Hon. Mr. Massey: You said returned soldiers. Mr, Holland: I said that in' the ranks of the Alliance of Labour are THOUSANDS OF RETURNED SOLDIERS.

They are- wholly in favour of the Post and Telegraph men being allowed to join up with their organisation. It is suggested that to join up with these returned soldiers and other members of the Alliance of Labour will make the. Post and Telegraph men disloyal. The Rt. Hon. Mr. Massey: Nobody ever said so.

■Mr. Holland: That is whole polni in the Government's attitude. The railway men joined up years ago with the Alliance of Labour. Does the Prime Minister propose to carry this further and say to .the Amalgamated Society of Railway. Servants, "You have to pull your thousands of men out oC the Alliance of Labour?" What •difference is there between the Post and Telegraph men and the railway men joining up? There is no difference. And what effect has the affiliation had on the railway men? It has not been responsible for the railway men taking action against Ihe Government, and goodness kows they have had grievances enough and cause enough to take action against the Government. However, I take it this is the preliminary step to making an attack on the railway men as well. Mr. McLeod: Hear, hear. Mr. Holland: A member on the Government benches says "Hear, hear." He must know something about

THE INNER WORKINGS and I-suggest that if the Government are going to take that kind of action —action that would have been almost a discredit to Germany in the days of Kaiserttom—they are going- to arouse the antagonism of the whole of the working class of this country. I mentioned a while ago that the counter-petition was released simultaneously in every office. It was released by Departmental officers. It was handled by senior officers. The departmental car was used in cases to circulate it. Signatures were obtained under duress. A pi ; ocess of intimidatlptt was worked. Sir, in the five minutes that remain to mc to speak I wish to quote a few cases that I have immediately before mc. Here is one statement from Blenheim, referring to a controlling officer who secured- signatures :

"His system of obtaining signatures was undoubtedly an act of intimidation. He numbered his petition iry the same manner in which the Attendance Boole Is numbered. Each officer was released in turn from his wtee

and called into the office and told he was wanted to sign the petition, and. that if his name did not appear in it he would be marked. When the officer in charge of the petition was approached by some of the employees who had signed under a misapprehension, he ■ ■ "

REFUSED TO ALLOW THEIR NAMES TO BE ERASED. The employees were also told that If the affiliation did not take place, the second cut would not take place, and the Association would get all they wanted." The next is a report from Nelson: "The Telegraph Engineer saw to hia Branch, and personally marched a few linemen from a job a quarter of a mile away to the office, and remained in the room while each man was brought in. to sign. With the bulk of linemen and." G.P.O. men there has been a systematic .process of subtle intimidation by the heads." The Greymouth report says: "The local controlling". ofiScejrs were summoned to the Chief Postmaster's room, and after a short private conference, each controlling officer personally placed the petition before the bers of his Branch, etc."

From Gisborne the report says: "Ii is general here that a certain official told the. linemen that they were risking the sack unless they sinned." Cases are cited where the postmistress's husband signed the counter-pe-tition, though he was NOT CONNECTED WITH THE DEPARTMENT in any way. May I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by directing attention to the fact that this counter-petition was. presented by the honourable member for Wellington North, who, however, did not "appear before the Committee to support it. Nor did he bring , a single witness. The Departmental officers did not come forward as witnesses, and we were given no opportunity of cross-examining them either on the* facts of the main petition or on the'counter-petition, though we were entitled to. cros"3-examine them. Th 3 Departmental promoters of the coun-ter-petition did not dare to support th.9 petition which they had put in.

M.J. Savage Mr. Savage (Auckland West): This seems to mc to have developed into a remarkable state of affairs. The Hon. Minister who has just sat clown has stated definitely that he has never used anything in the way of intimidation —that anyone could do just as he felt inclined. Let -mc quote something from the Minister's own letter: —

" . . Obviously, an Association whose members are officers of State, pledged to serve the whole of the public, cannot be allowed to be allied with an outside organisation, "... The question is, therefore, a matter for serious consideration by the individual members of the Service, and each and every officer should realise that the efficiency of the Department and pro"ba'oly his own persona: welfare depend upon the next step being taken in the right direction. ..." Now, I would like the Hon. Minister explain that last sentence, "the efficiency of the Department and the 'welfare of the individual depends upon 'the next step being in the right direction." Quite a curious kind of threat — it is a veiled threat, it is true, but it 'is a threat just the same. The Hon. Minister has also said that these petitions were not forced upon the employees in any direction. Well, in connection with this counter-petition 'at Auckland, for instance, it was circulated by the Chief Postmaster and the Superintendent. The Auckland Telephone Exchange girls REFUSED TO SIGN THE COUNTER- • PETITION. It was eventually taken back to them by an engineer, and they signed. I do not think anyone wants any further formation or elaboration of such a state of affairs as that. It is obvious what happened. The girls, of course, were afraid of getting- the sack—that is the plain English of it. Then at Thames the petition was placed in front of all the junior members of the staffi —those looked upon as likely to be weak. The instructions from Head Office were to release the petition at 10 a.m. on Thursday. This was done simultaneously at all the branches. Then at Hamilton an officer of the clerical branch was approached twice before the petition had been presented to him and which he had refused to sign, and li*s was told not to- overlook the fact that he was a' married man. He signed. Now what explanation Is required about that? Do you think, lie signed because i»e fouadthathe had voluntarily altered

his opinion? An Hon. Member: Who told you t&at? Mr. Savage: I am making this speech if you dp not mind. I will prove any statement I shall make right up to the hilt. A member of tlie mail staff was approached by ONE OF THE CONTROLLING OFFICERS, end told: "Officially I won't say sign It or do not sign it, but, privately, if you do not, you are a so-and-so fool." Now I take It that this speaks for itself. This happened in the Hamilton office: One of the clerical officers suggested adding the words, "under pro-, test," and was told that it would be the worst thing he could do, and that, it -would be better not to sign. The officer hesitated to sign, and was told, "They won't directly victimise .you, Jmt they can indirectly do it." Anyone who has been through the wages mill does not .need any explanation. I have been through it, and'know exacUy what it is to be victimised. It is all very well for the Minister to get uy and quote the objective of the Alllauce of Labour. After all, thinkinginen agree with it. An Hon. Member: Not all. Mr. Savage: I said "thinking men," and I no not include the honourable gentleman. Here is another case. A inailroom officer was told that one of the results of the petition would be that the Department "would pick their men." I think that the meaning of that is quite obvious. I say the Postmaster-General's own letter to the Association . CANNOT BE DEFENDED on any grounds. There are various parts of jthis petition that make one think. Here is another one: —■

"After the ballot papers had been despatched to the voters, the Post-jmster-General issued a statement ?>y circular message delivered to each officer and through the Press Association, closing , .it by strongly urging- every membr to vote. As this statement was belated and it was reasonable to suppose it would influence those who had. up to the elate of circulating it, refrained from voting, the date for the return of the ballot papers was extended to sth ApriL 1922, the Association not wishing to have the issue determined on a 'catch' vote, but to obtain the clearest possible expression of opinion from the membership." Wo'l, now. it seems to mc that the Association was perfectly fair Iα the matter wticn it was nollced tliat the Postmaster-General was writing, and that he was anxious that every individual should be given the opportunity to vote; lie was advising, in fact, that every individual member of the service should vote, and they extended tbe period of the poll in order to fall la with the Postmaster-General's .wishes. Of course, as has been suggested, that is in keeping-with the old story of the Maori racehorse: the wrong horse was in front when the Issue was decided. So the PystmasterGeneral decided that they should go round ag-un. Then; — "When the votes were counted, it ' was found that 6,390 valid votes had been recorded, and of. these 4,379 votes were in favour of iifliliation, while 1,973 votes were against the proposal. Under the rules of the Association. (30 per cent, of the recorded valid voi-ea are required to carry any . proposal submitted to members per medium or a postal ballot/

Well, personally, I do not believe in Ihat. I would sooner see a bare majority; so . that- honourable members will see that the Postal Association is really on the conservative side. They decuiecl upon a safe margin, and they [got well over the safe margin In the number of votes recorded in favour of the affiliation. It all boils down to this question, 2lr. Speaker: where are the remaining privileges of the civil servants or of the Post and' Telegraph Ofiicers? Of political rights they have few—i -was going to say none, but I Will say "few" in order to be perfectly fair. They can stand for a, seat in Parliament IP THE HEAD OF THEIR DEPARTMENT ALLOWS THEM. They do not know in that case how they stand with regard to their superannuation. They can organise lndusI totally, provided they do so on lines suitable to the Postmaster-General, or 'he (Minister in charge of their particular Department. An Hon. -Member: Why not? '.Mr. Savage: "Why not?" says Itte toaourable gentleman. Where does : &c freedom come in? I heard sdmefoing said this afternoon by the Tnemtoi' for Wellington North in refer---E'-ce to this -.petition. He went across; 'Russia to show what would 'happen? New "Zealand if this affiliation w«r*i

allowed. Let mc just say that one does not need, to go to Russia to start t3 think. And everybody knows, who can Ihink at all, that government must be—lt we are going to avoid trouble — according to industrial conditions, and it. was because the industrial conditions were developing ahead of legislative progress that this.petition is in front of the House to-day. Now I want some intellectual friend to upset that statement. That remark does not only apply to New Zealand, but il apples to humanity, to the development of the race. If we are going to avoid industrial trouble, if the world generally is to AVOID INDUSTRIAL- INSURRECTION,

we must legislate according to industrial conditions. I agree with the : Postmaster-General, on this pomt —; that this is a tiling that ought to be discussed coolly, and that we ought to try and seek a way out. Well, now, I do not think the way uut Is to go across to Russia for an understanding as to what might happen in New Zealand if this petition were granted. Every sensible person in New Zealand stands for governing New Zea--laud according to New Zealand condi-' lions. It has been stated repeatedly in this" House that no sane person; would attempt to apply New methods to''Russian conditions, anymore than he would attempt to apply Russian methods to New Zealand conditions. We find that the Post and Telegraph officials, having grievances innumerable, wt2i no immediate possible -chance of obtaining , political Tights, did the next best thing, and decided to affilate with what tliey consdered to be a powerful industrial organisation, an organisation that is perfectly legal, and the objective of which will stand all the fire the Government benches can give it.

The Post and Telegraph officers, then, are asking- for a legitimate and legal right; that is, to be allowed to affiliate with a perfectly LEGAL, INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION. They have been prevented from so doing', in spite of what the PostmasterGeneral has said. If they attempted to afHHate, they did it at the peril of losing their employment. That was made quite clear to them. The further question is: Under what legal authority have the Government acted? They admit that they have none; they have no legal authority for the action they took. It seems to mc it is about time they made a racve in the direction of setting legal authoritj', so that the people of this country might find out exactly where they are. Because it is quite an unfair thing that this particular action should be applicable only to the Post and Telegraph Officers' Association. As has been pointed out by the honourable member for Duller, the Railway Servants have been affiliated with the Alliance of Labour for some time, for some yearo; and the Government have taken no action. Why? Mr. Lysnar: Because they are not so vital.

Mr. Savage: "Because they are not so vital," the honourable member for Gisbome interjects. Of course, he does not know- anything about it, but still Ms interjection i? worthy of I passing notice. . No' one .surely, would seriously say that the railway servants are not of just as much importance as- the Post and Telegraph Officers? ' . * Dr.. Thacker: They handle lives, while the others only handle letters. Mr. Savage: As the honourable member for Christchurch East suggests, the railway servants handle lives, while the postal servants handle letters. However, the- fact remains that we are making FISH OF ONE AND FOWL, OF ANOTHER. We are applying all the elements or despotism to the Post and Telegraph Officers, -while allowing the railway servants their perfectly legitimate right—to affiliate with any legal body. I trust honourable members will express an opinion about this matter, because it is an important one. It not only affects the Post and Telegraph, officers, but it may be applied to every other section of the workers In the very near future. Who can say when the same principle is going to be applied to other workers; when we shall have legislation brought on to the floor of the House that will make it possible to organise only on craft lines and not in federations? That is the principle underlying the action of the Government here to-day. D. G. Sullivan Mr. Sullivan (Avon): Sir, it is now well after .midnight, and I only rise to Identify .myself with th« fight made £9 the ifcfcour Part? £ram these.

benches on behalf of the citizen rights of the Post knd Telegraph Officers' Association of New Zealand. It is not the Post 'and Telegraph, ohicers who are on trial to-day; it is the Government that Is on trial. The Government has the right or it has not the right to forbid the amalgamation of the Post and Telegraph Officers' Association with the AHiance of Labour. That it has the power to do so: I do not deny. That is obvious. No person denies that the Government has the power to prevent the P. and T. Officers' Association from affiliating with the Alliance of Labour, but if they exercise teat power without the moral and legal light—certainly, without the legal right—then they are guilty of a misuse of power. It is the same use of power that A BULLY EXERCISES : when he meets a small boy in the; street and, by virtue of his physical; strength, knocks the boy down and, takes irora the boy what he wishes. If; the Government hay not that right, then the exercise of the power becomes an humoral thing. I challenge any member of this House to contro-j vert the truth of the position as I-I have stated it. Might does not const!- | tute right. What is the position of the Post and Telegraph Officers' Association in regard to the matter, as: stated by the members on these benches? The position of the Post and Telegraph officers is that if-the Government have the legal right, then they will loyally obey the behests o2 the Government. They say that if the Government deems it right to place special legislation on the Statute Book v/ith a view to preventing them from' joining' the Alliance of Labour they (the Post and Telegraph men) will respect the decision of the Government, even though they will be opposed to the Government's action.. What could be more fair or more sportsmanlike than the attitude of the P. and T. officers? Mr. Parry: Or 'more manly? Mr. Sullivan: Yes, "or more manly," as the honourable member for Auckland Central says. They come to us as the representatives of the people, asking this House to defend the constitutional rights which they at present possess. Mr. W. W. Smith: Will you tell us what advantages they would get by affiliation?

Mr. Sullivan: That is not the question at all, and the honourable gentleman—if he has any intelligence at all —ought to be able to see that. I have tried to explain to the House that the P. and T. officer* say that if the right exists on the part of the Government to prevent them from affiliating with the Alliance of Labour they will accept the decision of the Government. They say that- if the the Government wishes to prevent them from joining the Alliance of Labour, and desires to do so in a legal way, they will. accept tae position without Quarrelling with the Government, even though they jmay differ from the Government on the question. It is a constitutional question. It is a question cf moral and, political rights. My opinion is that the P. and T. men care very little whether they join the Alliance of Labour or not by comparison with the maintenance of their rights; what they are concerned about is that this House shall not take away from them

THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS I which they have at the present time, and that this House will guard and defend them in the exercise of those constitutional rights. Mr. Jones: Who is taking them away? - Mr. Sullivan: The' Postmaster-Gen-eral, while he has admitted before the Committee that he has not the legal right to prevent the Association from joining the Alliance of Labour, has stated to the Association that if they affiliate .with the Alliance of Labour they will suffer for their action. His letter to the Association states that their personal welfare will be endangered as well * as their efficiency, if they join' the Alliance of Labour. Mr. Jones: "Wliat has that to do with their constitutional rights? Mr. Sullivan: It has this to do with them—and the honourable gentleman knows it as well as i' do —that the Postmaster-General has said to the Association that if they exercise their constitutional rights as citizens Qf New Zealand he will see to it that they are well punished for so doing. J I say, it is a most abominable thing that a man shall be punished, and-his living possibly taken away, because! he exercises his constitutional rights ag a citizen of this country. If, as has been suggested from the benches, the iGrOvernment wants to put itself «on side, then let it plaou the necessary legislation on the Statule Book; but while ;toes« men have the coa&titu.tion.-.

al right to join a constitutional organisation, registered under the law of the country, then surely Parliament will stand by them, and-say that their rights shall be safeguarded. I say again that the constitutional right exists, and .if this Parliament backs the Government, then Parliament itself 13 playing the part of the bully, acting on the principle that might is right. There has been a lot of argument from the. Government benches, particularly from the honourable members for Wairarapa and Wellington Suburbs, in regard to the counterpefition. As a member of the Committee, I heard the~case, and I know that when Mr. Combs was challenged oa this very question,, he said that if the Committee cared to adjourn the case he would communicate with the people .who had supplied him with information in regard to the

PRESSURE BROUGHT BY OFFICERS of the Department, and ask these people to come before the Committee and give evidence.. That was a fair offer, but it was not accepted. Let mc emphasise another point that has been made from these benches, namely, that the officers of the Post and Telegraph Service of Great Britain have been permitted to join up with the Trades Union Congress and the British Labour Party. I have heard no suggestion that those officers have in any way betrayed their trust, or are in any way less efficient than before they became associated with the Labour Party. But our Government practically, say that our officers are not on the same high level as the British Post and Telegraph officers —that while the British officers are to be trusted in alliance with outside Labour, our officers are not, because they might betray the country. I say that that is an unjustifiable insult to a splendid body of men, who have proved their loyalty and efficiency in the past. There have been suggestions in this debate that in some way or other th'e Labour Party is out to promote a kind of soviet rule in New Zealand. I want to deny it. I deny tt as an individual. I deny it on bsliaif of the Labour Party, and I deny it on behalf cf the Trade Union organisation in this country. I say in the most specific terms that there is no wish in that direction at all. I have never heard it suggested by anyone in the Labour -movement that we

should adopt soviet rule as the ideal for the guidance of the N.Z. Labour Party. I hope, Sir, that that is definite and convincing enough. I repeat that I have never heard any Labour man in this coutry advocate soviet rule for New Zealand, or soviet organisation in any shape or form. Our policy and ideals are to be found In our published platform. The Labour Party on these b-enches stands for the accompplishment of its ideals by Parliamentary action and along constitutional Hnes. I would have no objection at all in explaining: the platform and policy of the Labour Party to the honourable member, for Kaiapoi if he and the House cared to listen to mc, but It would be absurd for mc to attempt, that to-night. But I do say that the ideals of the Labour Party are being advocated and supported to-day, not only in this country, but in Great Britan and In the best part of the 5 world, by some of the most BRILLIANT LIVING MEN AND WOMEN. Many of the most brilliant men in Great Britain to-day are convinced Socialists, and are able to reconcile their Socialism with loyalty to the Empire, despite contrary accusations. All this talk about soviet rule is purely electioneering, and you think, by exploiting the flag and loyalty and sovietism, you can scare half the people from supporting the 'Labour' Party. Mr. Holland: And to prevent the House discussing the petition. Mr. Sullivan: -I say that this House ought to be the official safeguard of the principle of democracy, and when a body of men like the Post and Telegraph Association come to you and say that there is not a single line in the legislation of this country that prevents them amalgamating with the Alliance of Labour, and ask you in the, name of demorcracy, to stand by them, you are false to the principles that ought to govern you as members of Parliament in a democratic country, if you do not do so. W.E. Parry Mr. Parry (Auckland Central): I can well understand the Tory section of this House objecting to the right of the Post and Telegraph men and women to associate themselves with the rest ef their fellows in this country,] «bttt when one hears the so-called pro-? ; ereeeive mes objecting to the rjsfct flflr

free association among tke working class, one becomes almost astounded and we may Recognise just exactly where we are drifting. The principle involved in this question is one that had been at issue in other countries

for many years, and whatever this House may do in the way of bludgeoning these people, we shall not be finished with it, because if there is one thing more certain than another, it is that the workers will fight for this principle just as strongly and just aa determinedly as they have elsewhere. This is a sacred principle, and a sacred right of the working-class. Every man who reads at all, or who gives any consideration to what is now going on everywhere must know that we are living in a time of organisation. On the one hand, we have meat pools and butter pools and other kinds of pools, and to these I make no excepv tion, because I recognise we are living in a period of organisation. So I sa# that no matter what you may do ixt this House by force of numbers, Wβ will fight for the principle until such time as the RIGHT OP FREE ASSOCIATION is allowed to the workers of New Zoa« land, What are the facts in connection with, this case? Some little time ago we were face to face with what was called a difficulty. A slump had taken place and we on these benehef decidedly objected to the attitude taken up by the Government. It was apparent that the Government was out to take a very large slice from the Putfc lie Servants, and this declaration of its intention was followed up by certain industrial legislation that took approximately three million pounds from the workers. The point is that the demand for the reduction of the pay of State servants was made In the first place by the New Zealand Em* ployers' Federation. It is a most significant thing to note that it was the Employers' Federation that first squealed for a cut in the salaries of railway servants, and .this was irnme? diately followed up by a demand frora a body called- the Welfare League. A' deputation waited on the Government with the object of realising the ideas they had in view, and the res\ilt was that the Government introduced an<jl put through Parliament legislation that took' from the man receiving £4 10s. per week approximately 20 per cent of Ms earnings, while at the same time the Government brought down

and passed other legislation givlag to the rich men of New Zealand APPROXIMATELY HALF A MILLION POUNDS. I want to say that every credit is due to those who handled that situation, for the Post and Telegraph people. They handled it with considerable ability, and they put forward their case in a straightforward way. I do not think there was ever a case conducted in New Zealand on behalf o'C an industrial organisation ill the way in which that case was..conducted on. behalf of the Post and Telegraph people. Every credit is due to them, anfi I feel convinced that after this tho Postmaster-General cannot take umbrage at the way these men have dealt with the situation. They immediately told the people and the Gqterninent that they did not want to commit any breach of the law, that they wanted to see if the law prevented them affiliating with this organisation, that they would be satisfied if it could be proved to them that the law prohibited affiliation, but that if it did not, then they were going on with the affiliation. After long deliberation on the part of members of the executive, they decided to make a tour of New Zealand, and to place the position clearly and concisely before their members so far as it affected them. After it had been placed before the organisation "the question wa3 decided bj a

69 PER CENT. VOTE FOR AFFILIATION. In other words, tlie ballot was con*, ducted in the most legitimate way, on the same lines as the ballot taken Iα any arbitration dispute, and no objection was raised 'by the Governmeat on this-score.- It is significant that the Government at first was ' very easy about the matter, and the Post-master-General even advised the ran* and file of the officers to vote upon the question. That advice was given because he really believed there was no great chance of the proposal being carried, but when it was found that the vote was favourable to affiiation .then a hue and cry was raised by the Welfare League, and the Government Immediately danced to the tune of that organisation..As has fceea pointed out by the leader of the" Labour Party, the organisation that took exception to the proposed«affiliation Is managed by and contributed to by the large employers In New Zealand, and XConttaued on, P*£« 11).