LOSS OF FREEDOM

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19099, 21 August 1936, Page 5

LOSS OF FREEDOM

“VIOLENT INJUSTICE” COMPULSORY UNIONISM ORANGE LODGE WARNING STARVATION ALTERNATIVE (Per Press Association.l WELLINGTON, this day. “A denial of the inherent right of every citizen to freedom of choice how compulsory unionism is described in a statement issued by the legislation committee of the Loyal Orange Institution of New Zealand. “The committee desires to draw the attention of the public of the Dominion to certain aspects of recent legislation which infringe civil liberty and deeply entrench upon the rights and privileges of citizens not only from the moral and civil, but also from the religious point of view,” reads the statement. “The enactments which impose the obligation of compulsory unionism upon all men and women who work for their living and receive wages or salary is a denial of the inherent right of every citizen to freedom of choice. It may be said that he has the freedom to remain out of a union, but this is only freedom to starve, since lie cannot obtain employment under the new law without registering as a member of a union. BRITISH CHARTER “British unionism, which was granted its charter to organise after a struggle extending over 50 years, was founded upon the principles of human rights, religious freedom and civil liberty. These considerations were urged as the ground of the right of unions to organise. •

“The founders were mostly men of deep religious conviction, and they preserved even in their ardour for unionism the rights ot individuals. British unionism to-day still respects that right.

“It has remained for the Parliament of New Zealand to deny to the people of New Zealand their right of choice as to whether they will join a union. This introduction of the French syndicalist idea of compulsory unionism into New Zealand will inevitably work the similar injury to unionism as it works against the individual and the State.

“Therefore it is urged that all men and women who value their civil liberty should resist this legislation by all the force of their personal opinion and by every lawful means in their power.

“Further, the suggestion that it should be made compulsory by decisions of unions for all unionists to contribute to the funds of the Labour Party as a political organisation threatens a further invasion of the human rights which can only provoke the strongest resistance and opposition. Thousands of workers of every class have no sympathy with the socialistic ideas of the Labour Party or with the principles that animate their administration, and for these to be compelled, under a penalty of losing tlieir means of livelihood, to contribute money for such a cause is a violent injustice.’

REPLY BY MINISTER

USE OF MIS-STATEMENTS QUALIFICATION NEEDED (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, this day. The Minister of Labour, the Hon. H. T. Armstrong, referring to the statement of the Loyal Orange Institution regarding compulsory unionism, said the resolution was merely a string of misleading generalities “cunningly grafted on to three mis-statements, with the object of misrepresenting the Labour Government.” It was not correct to say without qualification that citizens could not obtain employment without registering as a member of a union.

In any employment not covered by an award or an industrial agreement, no worker could be compelled to join a union, continued Mr. Armstrong. A union could not be formed in any industry except by the will of the employees themselves.

The insinuation about a suggestion that it should be made compulsory by the decision of unions for all unionists to contribute to the funds of the Labour Party was singularly stupid. The Political Disabilities Removal Bill said that the funds of certain societies may be applied in furtherance of political objects if the majority of members so decided. If a society invoked this authority, it could devote its funds to assisting the political party of its choice. Those responsible for drafting the resolution would have done well first to have perused the legislation they sought to condemn. If they had read it, the terms of the resolution could only be regarded as a deliberate misrepresentation.