AMENDMENT LOST

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26558, 5 September 1947, Page 6

AMENDMENT LOST

Supervision by Registrar of Industrial Unions BALLOTS ON STRIKE ISSUES Parliamentary Reporter. WELLINGTON, Sept. 4. An unsuccessful attempt to amend the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill to ensure that secret ballots taken by unions on strike issues were conducted under the supervision of the Registrar of Industrial Unions or of some person designated by him was made by the Opposition in the House of Representatives to-night. The amendment was lost by 38 votes to 36. After a long discussion on an earlier amendment moved by the Opposition to restrict voting in a ballot to those who would be called out if it were decided to strike, the Minister of Labour, Mr McLagan, agreed to have consideration given to its implications and for this purpose the amendment was held oyer. The debate on the committal of the Bill concluded in the early afternoon with the reply of the Minister to arguments raised during the discussion. The House then/went into committee on the Bill and consideration in committee will be continued when the House resumes at 10.30 a.m. to-morrow. Urgency will then be taken for the remaining stages.

Replying to the debate on the committal of the Bill, the Minister of Labour, Mr McLagan, said it was objected that the secret ballot clause of the Bill was absurd because while it empowered a secret ballot on a strike issue, strikes were illegal. If a body of workers accepted the principle of conciliation and arbitration, their right to strike could not be maintained, however, because they had entered into an agreement for adjudication of their case. Outside Pressure Denied Mr McLagan continued that it had been alleged without specification that “ outside pressure ” had been put on to amend the Bill. The secretary of the Employers' Federation was a witness before the Labour Bills Committee and had objected to the secret ballot clause as originally framed. Instead, this witness had quoted a Canadian regulation and said he would be satisfied if the Bill were amended along the lines of this regulation. It was one which provided that the Minister of Labour might, at the request of either party, if he deemed fit, direct that a strike vote be taken under Government supervision. Thus it was the employers who suggested the main amendment. The Minister said that those who opposed the Bill, with the support of publicity in the Nationalist press, still fiercely opposed it. but their opposition counted as little to-day as ever it did. The Bill was strengthened by the amendments made. Opposition members-: Stop cracking jokes. You’ve got your riding orders. / Mr McLagan said that under the Bill, before it was amended, a secret ballot could have, been evaded, and all that could have resulted was a penalty. Under the Bill as amended the registrar could take a ballot if the union did not, and such ballot would be taken in every case where a strike lasted long enough. The measure was not intended to intimidate people, into abandoning strikes, but to ensure that those who did not want them would have the right to say so., The Bill was committed. The House then went into committee on the Bill. Number of Judges Mr R. M. Algie (Oppn., Remuera) pointed out that there was no limit in the Bill as to the number of deputy judges that could be appointed. That was a weakness. The Judicature Act limited the number of judges that could be appointed to the Supreme Court, and the Magistrates Courts Bill limited the number of magistrates. The. House, however, was asked to sanction the appointment of an unlimited number of deputy judges. Mr McLagan ' said the Government proposed to appoint the least possible number of. deputy judges. It was hoped that two would be sufficient, but if the Bill fixed a maximum of two and it was found-that another was required a third could not be appointed. If an upper limit were fixed, it might be assumed that there was an obligation to appoint that number, even though they were not all required. For the year ended June, 1941, the Court of Arbitration had dealt with 104 awards, and there were_ 60 complete settlements and 44 partial settlements. whereas for the year ended June. 1947. it dealt with 148 awards and there were 85 settlements and 63 partial settlements, said the Minister. Every industrial agreement had to go before the court to ensure that the stabilisation regulations were complied with, and it also had to hear appeals from the decisions of wage commissioners. There were also apprenticeship orders to deal with, and he had been informed that adjustments arising out of the recent wage pronouncement would take three months to clear up. No fewer than 26 awards were awaiting the court’s attention, and 78 awards from Conciliation Councils would come along to the court in due course. Mr J. T. Watts (Oppn., St. Albans) said the Bill required penalties to give it strength. . He said that he had in his possession a circular issued to its members by the Canterbury District Trades Council setting out its objections to the Bill as originally introduced. The council claimed for union executives the fundamental right to weigh up a situation and decide whether to commit the workers to a strike or not. Objections to the Bill came from trade union officials, who wanted to run their particular unions.

Power for Rank and File Members The Minister said the clause was not aimed at any union. The aim of the Bill was to put power into the hands of members of unions. The need for it however, might be greater in certain quarters than in others. The claim quoted by the member for St. Albans would never be conceded by the Government. The opposition to the Bill was just as great as when it was introduced. The Government had not conceded anything and did not intend to concede one inch on the question of the secret ballot. Mr F. W. Doidge (Oppn., Tauranga) said that the Communists, emboldened by their successes in New Zealand, were seeking an alliance with overseas Communists. Mr F. Langstone (Govt., Roskill): You’re speaking with a clenched fist! Mr Doidge said that before he went to Canberra the Prime Minister had expressed certain principles and used brave wotds, but there was nothing in the Bill to give the slightest indication that he intended to make these good. The Communists and militants were laughing at- this feather-duster legislation. Why not legislate against Communists holding key positions in unions? he asked. The Acting Prime Minister, Mr Nash, said that M r Doidge’s speech was the usual oil on flames. He was wanting to stir everyone and everything up Seeing that the member for Tauranga disagreed with a political organisation —whose methods he did not admire either, and whose philosophy was dangerous —would he also suggest that members of the National Party should 'be debarred? Some members of that party thought the Government’s policy was wrong, but others thought it was the job of the workers to stay subser-

vient. The Prime Minister had approved of the amended Bill before he went to Canberra. Danger of Intimidation The Minister of Works, Mr Semple, said there was a lot of difference between a man with a ballot paper in his own home and at a meeting where there might be intimidation or where a man might not wish to say much. An Opposition member: The Bill does not stipulate a postal ballot. Mr Semple: But the registrar can do it. Opposition members: Only if a union does not take a ballot. Mr Semple said the Bill under the law would give the “honest-to-God” trade unionist a chance to become the master of his own destiny. Mr D. W. Coleman (Govt., Gisborne) said the Bill did not make a strike legal. Penalties were already provided in the principal Act for an illegal strike, and they were quite sufficient.