RIGHT TO LIVE.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXIII, 14 December 1925, Page 9

RIGHT TO LIVE.

MENACED BY COMPULSORY UNIONISM. DESIGNATED AS MOSCOWISM. By Cable—Press Association —Copyright Australian and N.Z. Cable Association* SYDNEY, December 12. In the Legislative Council, Mr Ashton, one of the strongest men in the New South Wales Parliament, delivered a scathing attack on the Government's proposal to empower an Industrial Commission to enforce compulsory Unionism, as prescribed in the Bill. After a long debate, the provision was defeated by 22 votes to 12. Mr Ashton said this was not an ordinary political question. It was pure Moscowism, with slight variation according to local conditions. 'The Government said, in effect: “If you do not join a Union you will be subjected to a lingering death. You will he denied the right to live.” Mr Ashton continued: “Things have come to a pretty pass when we allow a Government to divide the country into two ranks, one of which shall have the right to live, and the other shall not have that right.” He characterised the Government’s action as both wicked and tyrannical. Mr Cruickshank quoted the Premier’s policy speech, that, legislation would he along the lines of the New Zealand Act.

Professor Pedcn said the New Zealand Act goes no further than giving the Court a free hand to deal with preference. Mr Waddell said he had not seen the New Zealand Act, but having regard to the fact that New Zealand was a well governed country, he was prepared to support an amendment on the lines of the New Zealand Act regarding preference. Mr A. O. AVillis, in reply, said the majority of workers were Unionists, hut there was always a “nark” who declined to become a Unionist, but toolt all the benefits. A man of this type was usually the cause of dispute. He should he forced into the Union for the sake of industrial peace if for nothing

Mr Wikis repudiated Mr Ashton’s remark that the Government’s action savoured of Moscowism, and asked: “Where is there a more militant Union than the British Medical Association or the legal profession?”