“Has Labour Extended Political Rights?”

Northern Advocate, 29 July 1938, Page 2

“Has Labour Extended Political Rights?”

- ■ “Are some of the provisions of the | Political Disabilities Removal Act. I passed by the Labour Government, 1 enlargements to or subtractions from | liberty?” asked Professor R. M. Algie | of his audience at the Whangarei j Town Hall on Wednesday night. ! Speaking of the unguarded intro- I duction of trade unionism, he said: j “Majorities can often bo mere tyran- j nical than minorities.” j The Hon. Mr Semple, in one of • thpse rhetorical flourishes for which j he has become so justly famous, said ; recently: “Look at the record of the j Labour Government. People hero are i now far more able to express n free ' opinion than they have ever been. . . . i They have far greater freedom here | -than in any other country in the, “world.” • : ■ i No Wider Speech Freedom. These words convoy the suggestion j that the Labour Government has in I some way enlarged or extended the | rights of the people as a whole and j that it has, in particular, added some- j thing new to the right of free speech, j or restored something that had previ- j ously been taken away. Such is not strictly the case. If we make allowance for one particular Statute to be referred, to later, there, is nothing in the legislation of the last two years which adds anything at all to the legal or. constitutional rights of the people in regard to the question of i ■freedom of speech. V Political Disabilities Removal Act, The one Statute which constitutes the exception is the Political Disabilities Removal Act, 1936. Although some I ■ 59 public and general Acts were put | upon the Statute Book in Labour's j first year, and although another 39 were added in the second year, the one Act just mentioned is the only one that makes any attempt to enlarge the political or constitutional freedom of the individual in the sense touched upon by the Minister. The Political Disabilities Removal Act does two things: first, it allows | members of the public service to be- ( come candidates for election to Parliament, and. secondly, it permits certain associations such as public service societies, industrial unions and trade! unions to apply their funds or any ■'7 part thereof for the furtherance of political objects. Were Privileges Taken Away? i i It is sometimes rather cleverly sug- j gested, and many people appear to believe, that the previous Government was itself responsible for taking away these privileges and that the Labour Government restored them as part of its general programme. This is quite incorrect. The Legislature Act, which was passed by our Parliament in 1908, and which replaced certain earlier Acts, contains the following provision: After •* setting out what persons may become j candidates for Parliament, it goes on ! to enumerate the four classes of persons who are disqualified from taking such office. It is specifically stated "“""fhat “civil servants” (now called “public servants”) are disqualified and may | not seek Parliamentary honours. The | New Zealand statutory provision on ' this point was very similar to that j which had existed in England since 1716, and in a great many other j countries. i Position of Civil Servants. In 1927, the Electoral Act was pass- | ed, and by its provisions public servants were still treated—as they had been for very many years—as disqualified from election to Parliament. • “So the position remained until 1936 • when Labour, in its first year, introduced something quite new in our political life and declared that from i henceforth public servants would be quite free to enter political life and would be entitled to special leave without pay for the few weeks at the height of their candidature. i Trade Union Funds. The second matter dealt with in the Political Disabilities Removal Act relates to the use of the funds of industrial and trades unions for political purposes. This point has an interesting history. In the year 1910, the House of Lords decided in Osborne’s case that a trade union could not use its funds for any purpose except those set out in the Statute or for some conciliary purpose. “Political purposes” were not included amongst those objects mentioned by the Statute. A few years later, in 1913, the British Parliament passed an Act authorising a trade union to use ~ its funds in this manner if a majority of the members expressed by a rosolu- ■ tion their desire that the funds should be so used.' In this English Act thei-e were some important safeguards. English Safeguards. It was essential that if such payments were to be made at all. they should be made out of a special and separate fund. It was further provided that any individual member could claim exemption from all liability to make any such contribution if he gave proper notice of his decision. In the event of his deciding not to contribute, he was not to be “victimised” in any way or shut out from the ordinary privileges of membership. Moreover, a trade union could not refuse to admit to membership a person who was unwilling to

agnje to the use of the funds for political purposes.

In 1914 a well-known Labour member, the late Mr McCombs. Introduced a Bill into our Parliament to bring our law into line with the English Aer, and he told the House that he would be quite satisfied if ho could secure a measure which gave the same privileges and protections as the English Act. The Bill did not become law at that time. Members’ Rights Taken Away. The Act passed by the present Labour Government accomplishes what Mr McCombs tried to do, but with one most important and devastating qualification. In the English Act an individual member could have his contributions protected from being used for political ends, even if he was one of the minority: in New Zealand, he has been deprived by his own Labour Party of this valuable privilege. The English Act with its due care for the wishes of minorities was. and is. quite satisfactory in the opinion of Labour Party supporters in England. But it does not Suit the outlook of the more extreme party now in power in New Zealand. That party has shown itself in this Act to be quite*ruthless as regards minorities amongst its own supporters. It denies to them a privilege which English law gladly concedes; it takes from them a right which the late Mr McCombs considered they wore justly entitled to. For the New Zealand Party it is “all or nothing” and minorities need not expect much in the way of consideration or mercy.