MINISTER'S CHANGED VIEW

Chronicle (Levin), 3 September 1947, Page 7

MINISTER'S CHANGED VIEW

Presp Assjciation)

ABJECT STJRRENDER, SAYS MR. HOLLAND

(Per

WELLINGTON, Sept. 2. Speaking after the Minister, the leader of the Opposition,. Mr. S. G. Holland, "said the latter portion of the Minister 's speech was typieal of the poisonous political propaganda in which he indulged on every possible occasion. Moreover, a suggestion he had made earlier that some people ' were intimidated by business pressure into joining the National Party, althaugh tliey voted Labour, was absurd. - ' ' I throw it back in his teeth, ' ' said Mr. Holland. "Every member of the" National Party is a free agent and if there are any who have paid their subscriptions unwillingly they are welcome to a refund on applying to me, including the Minister of Labour if he is one of them." Mr. Holland said the Minister who tonight proclaimed that strikes could not be prevented hy anti-strike legislation, was the same man who, as a member of the war administration, asked for the right to impose a fine on strikers and to dump them into prisons. Mr. Holland said strikes could not be prevented on all occasions but every iegislative aid should be given to conciliatory negotiation and there xuust be provision for the fair and timi administration of the law once negotiations had been conducted. The Governinent had fallen into the simple human error of addressing itself to a reduction of working hours per day, or days per week and weeks per year, with the regrettable result that, as acknowledged in the Budget, production had fallen. The Government 's iegislation had thus defeated its own end of providing a higher standard of living and it was interesting that Mr. Baxter, secretary of the Eederation of Labour, was reported froin Meibourne today as warning Australian unionists against making the same errors as New Zealand in regar'd to the 40-liour week. Labour had claiined that it could bring industrial peace more suceessfully than any other Government because it understood the workers but it was no exag geration to say that the chief Ministers were greatly disappointed • that their Iegislation had been accompanied by a great deal of industrial trouble and tliose who should have been gratetui had been openly deliant and regardless of the public welfare. The average New Zealand worker loathed strikes but the workers, through their Parliamentary representatives, had failed to find an effective way of stopping strikes from which the workers themselves suffered most. The militant unions that caused the trouble could be counted on two hands and even in those unions it was only a few leaders who were responsible. JMr. Holland said the militant leaders had diseovered that by employing direct action, intimidatioii, tlireat of strike and go slow, they obtained better results tlian did other unions by lawful processes. That was a serious biot 011 our syStem. They had also diseovered that if they pulled together strongly enough the Government would give way and, the penalties under the law would not be enforced against them. They had seen the Prime Minister override the decisious of courts oi justice, wiping out penalties, and how could they be expeeted to respect a Prime Minister who set aside the courts. Mr. Holland said the watersiders had asked to forsake the Arbitration Court and have their own coinmission but through all the succeeding stages of the coinmission they had llouted its decisious. Now they domauded a coinmission 011 which tlie workers would have majority representatiou. u Mr. Holland said it had long been i\ ritteu into our law tliat strikes were uulawful but certain trade union leaders, kuowing that tliat part of the law was a dead letter, opposed this Bill because it was something new. Wheu tlie Bill was ber'ore the Labour Bills Committee and evideuce was invited, the committee was ignored by those best able to oil'er it — the Federation of Labour and union bosses. They went instead to the Minister with the result that the penalty provisions had been eliminated. Union leaders had seen in the Bill a threat to their powers and when they protested to the Minister, who had been a unionist himself but had adopted a difierent outlook since he became a Minister, had given way. As tlie strong, silent man he claimed he had been, he had declared that the Bill would go through and he had in fact won the first battle — a battle of words. But he had surrendered in the seeond battle— the battle of the secret ballot. Ihe Bill, as reported back from the committee, was just another capitulation and just another surrendel". The strong man had ruu away. The secrel ballot clause had been so rewritten that it was now as worthlcss as a balloon with nothing iu it. The law providing for secret ballots without a penalty for failure to observe the law was worth 1 p.fs

Redraft a Farce. Mr. Holland said the Minister had slid over one important thing very gracefully. The Bill said if a uniou did not conduct a secret "ballot then the , registrar of industrial unions may. 1 Even if it were decided by secret ballot to hold a strike then, under the existing law, such a strike was illegal. There was no obligation on the registrar to conduct a strike. The redraft of the Bill was a farce. Tlie National Party wanted to improve facilities for investigating industrial disputes, to accelerate the court's work and to prevent strikes occurring. The party. was not opposed - to the secret ballot but there should be a 51 per cent. majority bef'ore strike aetiom was taken. The" original clause in the Bill proyided for lieavy penalties 011 botli union members and otficials if thev were parties to a strike or loekout uilhout this liaving been approved by secret ballot. It was obvious that ii that were to be the law there niust be a penalty for lioncompfianee. The Bill was an abjeet surrendel", a runaway, a failure and a farce.