STATUTES AMENDMENT

Timaru Herald, Volume CLVIII, Issue 23375, 5 December 1945, Page 6

STATUTES AMENDMENT

A COMPREHENSIVE MEASURE Alterations To 49 Acts Contentious Clauses Debated (N.Z.P.A.) WELLINGTON, Dec. 4. The Hon. H. G. R. Mason, moving the second reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill in the House today, defended the clause giving the poiice officers power to form persons into queues. He considered the queue system was more comfortable than the rush and scramble in which youths with animal spirits might relish a rough and tumble but which was no good to less robust persons. Mr M. H. Oram (National, Manawatu): Who asked for this clause? Mr Mason: The Police authorities. Mr S. G. Holland (Leader of the Opposition) expressed his objection to this method of passing legislation. The House had been sitting for 23 weeks, of which about 20 -weeks were spent on all sorts of things, such as papers for consideration, all very useful in their way, but members had come to transact the country's business. Now came this Bill amending 49 different Acts of Parhament. It had been considered by the Statutes Revision Committee, the members of which had not seen the Bill until Monday, and it was the custom to refer .Bills to committees with expert knowledge of the questions in them. How could the Statutes Revision Committee have expert knowledge of 49 different Acts? For example, two sections which were worth a special Bill on their own were those dealing with the wages and conditions of agricultural workers and sharemilkers. Members of the Opposition would like to see farm workers get the benefit of good conditions, and they should have ample time to study the provisions of such legislation. Another clause enabled the ValuerGeneral to attack farmers’ cream cheques for payment of rates. That, too, was worth a special Bill. A fanner might have given an order to someone else, but the Valuer-General's order would apparently take precedence. It was necessary to have Washing-up Bills, but they should not include such revolutionary things as compulsory unionism in the Public Service.

No Alternative The Hon. D. G. Sullivan said if Mr Holland had not made the speech he i did it would have been a break from precedent. The problems confronting the Government and the methods of solving them were the same as those of all Governments in the 25 years he had been in the House. He thought Mr Holland had exavoerated the position. Although this was not the best method of legislating, it did save the time of the House. If all the clauses were separate Bills heaven knew how long it would take the House to get through its work. The session had been one of the most productive of valuable fruitful legislation in the history of New Zealand. While the House was passing those Bills it could not be ' dealing with matters in the Statutes ! Amendment Bill. It was unnecessary ■ to have a separate Bill dealing with : compulsory membership of railway { service organisations because the whole j country was familiar with compulsory unionism and the railway organisations ' had asked for it some time ago. The Government believed the clauses in the Bill could not be done without, and that only the alternative to the Statutes Amendment Bill would be to leave the work undone, which would be a more serious matter. Mr C. G. Harker (National,’’Waipawa) said the Statutes Revision Committee had not had the opportunity of hearing evidence on many vital issues. It recognised that past Governments resorted to this pro- j cedure in bringing down legislation, but , the procedure was now being abused. , The Hon. R. Semple said he was 100 ; per cent in favour of compulsory ' unionism, which he considered made for a greater degree of efficiency and ; contentment among the workers. He ' favoured every farmer being a mem- | ber of the Farmers' Union. There were, unfortunately, people whom he described as industrial cuckoos, rail sitters and parasites who were prepared to accept the benefits obtained through the efforts of others but were too mean to contribute their share. It had to be recognised that trade unionism had come to stay. Compul- I sory membership had been sought by j the railway organisations concerned. J There was no reason for strikes in New Zealand and those who walked out were merely cutting their own throats and destroying the privileges which the pioneers had fought for and handed down. Mr W. J. Polson (National. Stratford) said he wished to protest against the clause bringing farm workers under the Arbitration Act. The bringing of farm workers under this Act would destroy the valuable work done in the past and create turmoil and disagreement between farmers and their workers. Mr K. J. Holyoake (National, Pahiatua) said the' number of Bills coming- down in the dying stages of the session resembled a Parliamentary paper chase with Ministers as hares. The clauses relating to farm workers were the thin edge of the wedge with which the Government could control agreement between farmers and farm workers. Negation of Democracy Exception to the clause which gives the Valuer-General power to enforce payment oj. rates was taken by Mr S. W. Smith (National, Bay of islands). He said the clause was brought in to censure and discipline the Mangonui County Council which, over a long number of years, had made efforts on constitutional lines to obtain the adjustment of an injustice. The fact that the Valuer-General was being given power to enforce the payment of rates was an invidious piece of legislation, said Mr Smith. It was the negation of the fundamental rules of democracy, particularly that rule which gave the individual the right to have access to the courts of the country. The Valuer-General would have power to order any money to be paid direct to the Government —a power that was a mockery of democracy—instead of getting an attachment order through the usual court process. Mr D. W. Coleman (Government. Gisborne) said there was nothing unfair in the clause relating to agricultural workers. It gave the Court

of Arbitration power to hear a dispute when two parties to an agreement which had been in existence for some time could not agree on a new agreement. This merely accorded agricultural workers the same privileges as town workers already enjoyed. The Opposition merely gave lip service to the workers and then proceeded to attack them by opposing an extension of their rights in any direction. Farmers Irritated Mr A. J. Murdoch (National. Marsden) said the system by which sharemilkers macle agreements with owners had worked satisfactorily for years, but recently the member of another place went to the Waikato stirring up trouble between farmers and sharemilkers. That was the reason for the clauses in the Bill. That man did a lot of harm. The Minister in charge of the Bill, instead of stirring up more trouble, would be well advised to withdraw the clauses from the Bill and let the proposals be circulated to farmers’ organisations for their comment. There was a good deal of irritation among farmers to-day, as would be admitted by the Minister, who did not find a recent meeting in Taranaki entirely harmonious. Mr Thorn: There are some hooligans there. Mr Murdoch: And elsewhere, too. Mi- Murdoch said the difficulties between sharemilkers and farmers had been exaggerated. If there were less interference with sharemilkers and farmers production would be aided instead of being hampered. The Hon. B. Roberts said that dairy factories compelled their suppliers to take out shares, which was a form of compulsory unionism. Morever. representatives of the Farmers' Federation went up and down the countrycriticising the Government. Sharemilkers had an equal right for their representatives to move about the country organising them.

Mr Roberts said those who did the work had as much right to an organ- , isation as had the owners, who were ' sometimes absentees living in towns. When the House went into committee, Mr T. C. Webb (National. Kaipara) said the clauses concerning agricultural workers meant in effect that the Arbitration Court was being told in a manner that was not straightforward to amend the Agricul- . tural Workers Act. 1936. “I would prefer the straightforward method in- 1 stead of a nod or a wink.” said Mr j Webb. Discussing the rating clauses i Mr Webb said he had no objection to | the Valuer-General being given power | to do what a county council ought to j do. He was not upholding any country in refusing to strike rates. There was no ground for unconstitutional action. ; Councils which objected to the law as ■ it stood could take constitutional steps, j but should administer the law as it ’ stood or get out. The power given to ■ sequester debts owing by ratepayers was a rank injustice and could lead to ' much hardship. The Opposition called for a division on the short title as a means of regis- i tering their protest against the introduction of important legislation bymeans of such a bill at the end of the | session. The clause was adopted by 39 votes to 30. I Amendment Rejected An amendment to the clause dealing with compulsory union membership . for railway employees was moved by , Mr Webb. The' amendment was that compulsory membership should not be : enforced in railway organisations until the majority of the workers had < decided by secret ballot in favour of ) such a course. Mr G. H. Mackley (National Mas- ' terton). who seconded the amendment. : said its adoption would be to the : advantage of all railway workers. i Mr Semple opposed the amendment, and said it was useless and ridiculous to take a ballot to allow the tail to wag the dog. Of 24,000 railway employees he doubted if 1000 were nonunionists. Mr E. B. Corbett (National. Egmont) said the amendment would allow workers the democratic right to show their desire by ballot. The amendment was defeated by 40 : votes to 32. Mr Oram described as dangerous and ’ pernicious the clause giving the < Valuer-General increased powers in : regard to the collection of rates. It i was aimed at. the dairy farmer seek- i ing to authorise the Valuer-General to get down on a farmer’s milk cheque | if his rates were unpaid. It gave . greater power the Valuer-General than was possesed by local bodies under the I existing law. Law Defied Mr Fraser said it was recognised that hospital rating presented a problem in some areas, but when the principal act was brought down it was never contemplated that there would be a concerted attempt by a local body to defy the law as was the case with the Mangonui County. If the ordinary processes of the law were used fo collect except under such exceptional conditions the procedure would become unworkable. It would be putting a premium on an attempt to sabotage the law. If one ratepayer refused to pay his rates it was right that th? , law should be invoked to recover that sum. but if 20.000 or 30.000 ratepayers elected to default some means other than court procedure was necessary to enable the money to be collected for essential purnoses. Mr Fraser aid the Mangonui County Council was. as far as he knew, the only local body t„which the procedure authorised in the clause would be applied and it was solely to meet the exceptional conditions which had arisen at Mangonui that the clause was introduced. The clause was retained on the voices. Clause Withdrawn Mr Holland, speaking to the clause empowering police officers to form queues said he objected to the clause conferring such powers on the police New Zealanders were well-mannered and disciplined and did not need a policeman to tell them what to do. The clause savoured too much of regimentation. The cause of queues, he said, was shortages. If there were better facilities provided at railway stations and elsewhere, the need for queues would be obviated. Mr Fraser said he did not attach great importance to the clause which had been asked for by the Commissioner of Police. Mr Fraser said he was willing for the clause to be dropped if the House was not unanimous about it. It was not practicable to provide facilities to enable all people to get their tickets at the same time at the railway station. There was no question of a police drive in the matter of queues. He had no less horror of regimentation than the Leader of the Opposition. The clause was struck out