UPPER HOUSE DEBATES POLITICAL DISABILITY REMOVAL BILL

Wanganui Chronicle, 7 October 1950, Page 6

UPPER HOUSE DEBATES POLITICAL DISABILITY REMOVAL BILL

PARLIAMENT BLDGS.. Last Night (PA)—Opinions for and against the Political Disabilities Removal Amendment Bill were expressed in the Legislative Council today. Majority rule suited the Labour Party only when things were going its way, said the Leader of the Council, Mr. Polson, when introducing the Bill, which provides that a majority of union members, rather than of the votes recorded, must decide whether a union should contribute to political party funds. "When things are not going Labour’s way, these democratic principles are scuttled.’’ said Mr. Polson. “That is not democracy. These are the principles of the Communist Party. Mr. J. T. Paul. Wellington, said the restriction applied only to trade unions. The Bill meant that the silent vote was a vote against. “That gives a reward and incentive for apathv," he commented. Mr. Poison said that the Bill gave effect to exactly the policy as that laid down by the Labour Party itself and adopted a number of years ago that a majority of the union members should be required to apply union funds to political objects. In 1948 the Labour Party faced the necessity of maintaining an important venture, its journal, founded to express the political views of . the party, said Mr. Polson. That journal was facing heavy losses and because it had to keep the paper going Labour had altered the law to force contributions from union members, some of whom were not Labour supporters. The 1948 amendment had an effect opposite to that desired, said Mr. Polson. It had made many people who otherwise would have voted for the Labour Party vote against the Labour Government. ‘This Bill does not go as far as manv people would wish,” continued Mr. Polson. The majority could still force the minority to support financially a cause for which they had no sympathy, and with which they did not agree. Mr. Paul described the Bill as a “hateful piece of legislation, conceived in dishonesty.” The Bill pretended to correct a position that did not exist. It was nonsense to say there was a high political motive be--hind the Bill. Unless the provisions of the Bill were applied generally, and they could not bs, the Bill was discriminatory against unionists, he said. Its purpose was not to protect conscience, but to make it difficult for the Labour Party to function and to give the National Party an advantage. Mr. A. P. O’Shea (Wellington) said all mass contributions to any political party should be prohibited by law. Unions should be political bodies, tut not party political bodies. “I should take a very dim view if Federated Farmers contributed to a political party, he said. The Bill would raise a good deal of trouble in the trade union movement, said Mr. J. Roberts, Wellington. The Bill was dangerous and would achieve no good purpose. It would only create class hatred.