Magistrate Orders, Union Official Interferes

Chronicle (Levin), 2 September 1948, Page 6

Magistrate Orders, Union Official Interferes

Press Association)

• • (Per

WELLINGTON, September 1. , 1 A Crown Law Ofiice opinion that the' law, did not entitle a magistrate to , order two New Plymouth youths as punishment for acts of vandalism to worlc on borough reserves, was quoted by Mr. McLagan when discussing a questiou asked last week by M-r. VV. A. Skeat (Patea). The latter had given notiee to ask the Minister of Labour ' ' whether he vvill give an immediate assurance' that any attempt by trade uniou. ofticiais to frustrate or impede the enforeement •of penalties- properly inflieted by the Oourts, will »iiot be tolerated, by the Government." • In a note to the question Mr. Sheat said t\vo ypuths convieted of serious vandalism in the children 's playground at Kavvaroa Park, New Plymouth, were ordered by the Magistrate, in addition to a substantiai money hue, to work at least 120 and 100 liours rfe-spectf-ully in the borougli reserves. The Borougli Council aud Ohild Welfare Department had now been notiiied that the youths, if employed on the reserves, must beeome members of the Labourers' Union and receive a labourer's pav. Mr. McLagan, in a written reply, tabled today, said: "I have had inquiries made aud am advised that the union gave notice that the employment of the boys on Borough Council Reserves would require to be in terms of the Taranaki Local Bodies' Labourers ' Award. The union 's action appears to have been in the direction of upholding the provisions of the law as enacted in tlie 4..C. and A. Act and amendments. " Mr. Sheat, discussing this- reply, said it appeared that the Magistrate, al'ter imposiifg the sentence, was approached by 'the union secretary. What transpired was unknown but it was known that as a result of the secretary 's action the penalty as imposed had not been enforced. At the time the Magistrate was widely upplauded for the staud he took. It was generally recognised as a case of niaking the punishment lit the crime aml the example was followed in Dunedin. Mr. Sheat said that if a situatioh was to obtAin in whicli trade union secretaries, in the sacred name of trade uniouism, were to be allowed to bring pressure to bear on Magist'rates to defeat the carryiug out of salutary &entcnces, it would be a sorry state of afl'airs. lt was reported „that the youths were now worlcing in the grounds of the New Plymouth Publii- Hospital. It could not be suggested that the carrying out of the peualtv imposed by the Magistrate would have been detrimental to the interests of any trade unionist. The action made a travesty of the administration of trade unions. "I bclieve the Government should talce some strong action to prevent this sort of thing happening in future, " said Mr. Sheat. "The Ministef suggests that the secretary 's action was in the direc tion. of upholding the law but his action appears also to have been in the direction of encouraging vandalism of a serious charaeter — souiething whicli responsilde persons desire to see stanip ed out. It is deplorable that any pressure should be b rough t to bear on a .Magistrate to have puuislanent imposed by him varied or set 'aside. Mr. McLagan said oue couhl undei:stand the indignation of the member for Patea when he saw vanish the prospects of a job being done on a wage l)asis so^ satisfactory to him — nothiug at all. Such arrangenientswould have the uuqualified support ot members , opposite. Such wages compared with some whieh obtained under former Nationalist Governments. The secretary of the union concerned had merelv taken steps to see that the law of the countrv was observed. (Opposition laughter). Mr. Sheat: That is. tlie onlv joke the Minister has ever made. Mr. McLagan said he had caused iuquiries to be made into the mttter. An. opinion lie obtained from the Crown Law Ofiice was to the etl'ect that the Magistrate had no power to order work on borougli reserves. Mr. Sheat: Then the remedv was to contest the sentence. Mr. McLagan said tlie opinion was fthat the IMagistrate, while entitlod to place offeiulers under the supervision ot a chikl welfare otticer, had no power to order them to work for a particular person or for a Borough Council. "That is the opinion of the Crown Law Ofiice regardless of the affectiou the lionourable member may have for work done for no wages," said Mr. McLagan. "I am not eriticising the action of the Magistrate. Oppositton voices: Oli, no. not at all Mr. McLagan said the opinion of tlie Crown Law Ofiice was also that, as the Magistrate was not empoyvered 'to malce the order he did, the Borough Council, had the boys been employed by it,

would have been in the relationship of maste'r to servant and would have been i obliged to pay them award wages. It would therefore also have been neces> sary, according to this opinion, for the youths to join the union. • Mr. McLagan said if ever the people of New Zealand entrusted the National Party with -Government they would interfere with the I.C. and A. Aet as they had done in the past. Mr. Sheat: What did the Communist Party tliink about it when the Minister was a member of i.t Mr, McLagan: That was about the period when the honotirable member • for Patea would" have notliing, to do with the leaders of the Labour Party because they ' were not fevolutionaxy enough for him. Mr. Carr (who was Aeting Spealcer at the time): I don't think this exchange of compliments is revelaiit to the question. Mr. McLagan said Mr. Sheat made some personal claims to legal knowledge but his knowledge of the law might now be enlarged. Mr. Sheat had called the written reply ridiculous but if it were it was entirely appropriate to tlie member who had asked tlie question. Mr. . Sheat had accused the Government of encouraging vandab ism but there would be some exhibitions of vandalism if ever Mr. Sheat got (his way with tlie soeial legislation of the countrv. Mr. " Slieat had the audacity to sav that the upholding of the law brought about a deplorable state of affairs. Did members opposite think tlie law should be set aside according to tlieir own prejudicies? Mr. J. K. McAlpine Selwyn) said he was surprised that tlie Minister had defended the trade union secretary 's action whicli might be used by the trade union movement as an example of the means whicli eould be used to defeat the laws . of the countrv. It was amaxing that the Minister :should ajipear to defend, two law breakers and to encourage the setting aside of punishments designed to curb vandalism. ^fr. E. P. Aderman (New Plriuoiitli) said the Minister of Labour was an example of inconsistency. The New Plymouth Magistrate 's action had been taken to check vandalism whicli had been proininent in New Plymouth for some time, 'but tlie Minister did not uphold the Magistrate and preferred to defend tlie union secretary. Mr. II. E. Combs (Onslow) asked if the Magistrate was uithin the law when he hmposed tlie penalty of the type whicli was under discussion. Mr. Combs said he did not uphold vandalism of any type anywhere but was not the Magistrate t ransgressing the liberty of the subject when he imposed that penalty? Mr. E. B. Corbett (Egmont) said that what had alarmed him was the t'act that a Alinister of tlie Crown had spoken as he did and, in effect, condoned vandalism in New Plymouth. The Minister detinitely was undennining the spirit of justiee. The attitude of , the Magistrate had niet with the general apju'oval of all riglit thinking people. Mr. .McLagan, at this stage, rose to a point of order and said that in none of his remarks could it resonably be eonstrued that he condoned vandalism. Mr. M. iloohan (Petone) said that what Government speakers had taken exceptioii to was that the Alagistrate had broken the I.C. and A law and to carr.v out the Magistrate 's sentence to tlie logical conclusion, forgers might as well be given jobs in banks and thieves given jobs as p'oliceiu.en. ilr. W. A. Bodlcin (Otago Central) said he was amazed that rf' menjber of the Crown sliould say that the provisions of-the I.C. and A. Act should apply in the case under discussion. The attitude of the Minister was more serious than the action of the trade union secretary- who may have been niore a fool tlian a knave because he did not realise the implications of his action. Did tlie Minister suggest seriously that a person who was ordered by a Court of Justiee to render certaii^ services caine- witliin the provisions of the I.C. and A. Act? Mr. T. E. vSkinuer (Tamaki) said that the member for Patea and others like him, would like to see the -day when Magistrates would direct free labour to their farms. Mr. R. M. Maefarlaue (Cliristcliurch Central) said tlie question was whether the work the boys were doing was governed by an award. Mr. R. M. Algie (Remuera) said that if the sentence imposed bylhe Magistrate was wrong, it would be easy to have it eorreeted by legal processes. There was too much interference and belittling of legal officers today and if a person approached a Magistrate without anthority, that action should lie condentned. The discusison lapsed .after otlier members from botli sides of the House had spoken. .