STRIKE OFFENCES,

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1922, 3 December 1913, Page 4

STRIKE OFFENCES,

PREVENTION OF INTIMIDATION

"BESETTING" AND "FOLLOWINC."

Tho''Police Offences Amendment Bill (tho Hon. A. L. Herdmau) was commitI- tecl - : , , Mr. G. W. Russell urged' that as the Bill apparently proposed to deal with offences at times of iudusI/Trial: disturbances, the Minister ought to explain precisely what the cflect of the Bill ;would be. Tho Hon. A. L. Herdmau said tho . Bill was almost an exact copy of tho English law, the Protection of Persons and Property Act. Ho explained the effect of tho clauses refer- / ring to intimidation of workers at times of'"industrial turmoil, saying that He hoped they would commend themselves to honourable gentlemen of good sense in thcvHousc. It must bo obvious to them that if a mau who wished to go about his business was intimidated, tho person' who intimidated him should be punished. It must bo equally obvious thaVwn'cn a man was followed when attending to his ordinary business, by another person, tho person following mado himself a nuisance, and should bo brought boforo the Court. In tho same way it sliould not bo lawful for a mau to watch or besot another man's house, and by so doing intimidate that man or his family. These offences, although they; occurred at isolated intervals, ■sometimes were committed, and they became.a source of serious annoyance. It wiis'a fundamental principle of English law that a man who had an occupation to follow should ho allowed to follow it'twithout molestation. (Hear, i'lidar.);-i.lt must naturally follow that '.When' a man was hindered from carrying on his business, tho law should stop in to protect him. With regard to tho clause .referring to "inciting," the Nov/ Zealand law differed from the English law, in that the New Zealand law did not make it an offence for one per- ' son. to incite another person'to commit a 'breach of tho law. Under tho common law of England this was an of- ,• fence. Under tho New Zealand law there could bo no offence for inciting until a breach of'the law 'was committed. :■.... "■■' • Tho Offence of Following. Jlr. G. Witty asked how Clause 2 differed from the EnglisTi Act. In his opinion it differed materially. Ho also asked why tho word "persistently" had been ;cut out in reference to the offenco of following. As tho clause stood anyone might bo convicted of an offenco who followed another person unwitting-

ly.i ■ ' •, Mr. TV. H. D. Bell pointed out that the clause provided for an offcuco only where a man followed another with a view to forcing him to do something. ■If the word "persistently" were retained a different member of a strike committeo might follow tho same man übout day after day without any of them becoming liable to a legal penalty. Mr. A. H. Hindmarsh said that it would be unwise to go further than the English Act. To do so would appear vindictive. He hoped the AttorneyGeneral would get up and say ho would adopt the English law. ~ Mr. Herdman, replying to Mr. Witty, said that Clause 2 was the same as in tho English Act save that tho word ''persistently," in relation to following, had been deleted. There was sonio difference between the wording of tho two Acts in reference to tho otlcnco of "watching and besetting." The English Act specifically legalised peaceful picketing. There was no such provision m tho New Zealand Act and he considered' it unnecessary. As tho Bill stood,' before a conviction could be secured it had to bo shown that a man', had been guilty of intimidation or had tried t$ exercise compulsion. As to a Suggestion by Mr. Hindmarsh that the Bill would bo regarded as panic legislation, tho Minister pointod out that the Bill was introduced before the present industrial, trouble arose.

Peaceful Picketing, ; Mi'„ TV. A. Vcitch said that ho regarded this as panic legislation, which' would* not have a healthy effect upon tho public mind generally. In his opinion, if there had been no strike at Waihi there would have been no Bill of this character. It would bo regarded as repressive legislation, by peoplo whoso minds wore already excited. Personally ho had'ho objection to the Bill so long as it did not prohibit peaceful picketing, but,-in : his opinion, if it wero passed, there" would bo a doubt as to whether peaceful picketing was legal. Ho urged that tho Bill should be brought into lino with English law by tho inclusion of a.clause specifically legalising peaceful picketing. Mr. A. H. Hindmarsh suggested that tho Minister should insert in the Bill provision to allow defendants charged' with strike offences tho right or trial by jury. - Sir Walter Buchanan said it was evident from the text of tlie'Bill that there' .was no intention iu it of preventing (peaceful picketing. ' AU'nW. A. Voitch suggested that tinMinister ought to give consideration to some .means of preventing Merchants' -Associations and anarchists of that typo from profiling by industrial disturbances bv'charging famine prices for i'ondstull's. 'This.'.Bill would deal effectively with one tyillt of anarchists, but would leave iniptniished those other anarchists, highly respectable gentlemen, who cornered the j I'oodstuH's of the people.

The J lon. A. L. Ilerdnian said tho Bill hud not been brought in to deal with the; itteJenl industrial trouble. It might have been suggested by tlu disturbances at'W'aih'i, because then the law had been found''to bo inadequate. Tho Bill had been introduced some four months ago, long-before the present strike broke out. In reply to tho member for Wanganui, lie would ask that 'lion, gentleman to suppJV liim with any evidence ho had of breau,h,os of the law committed by any of tho! merchants to whom be bad referred. He would remind'the lion. gen-, tleman that t'lioro was on tho Statute Book a Commercial Trusts Act, by which people forcing up prices unreasonably could.ho de.ilfc with, and had been al-Teirdy"-dealt with. Ho was surprised that' the member for Wjngnniii should make any objection to tho (ioverliiuent stepping in to protect men following up their ordimiry business. If men' were being. flJid even assaulted, it

was tlm duty of Die Government to protect them, and to .sco that there was ample ])!'ovision on the Statute Hook to enable offenders to he dealt with.

ill-. T. 31. Wilford suggested that tho Minister should allow tho right of trial hy jury for offences to ho created hv tho Dill.

air. A. H. Ilindmarsh said that there was much in the Bill of which he approved. They could not permit any person to use violence, hide tools, watch or beset a house, and so forth. He contended, however, that peaceful picketing should be- legalised. air. Vcitch repeated a request formerly nmdo by him that peaceful picketing should ho expressly declared to bo lawful. Ho would, however, support the Minister in any proposal ho might mako to prevent intimidation. In Clause 2, at the suggestion of Sir Walter Buchanan, the Minister moved an amendment- to make it an offence to threaten to injure tho property of any person. The amendment was agreed to. Picketing. Tho Hon. A. L. Herdman moved, in accordance with tho recommendation of tho Statutes Revision Committee, to strike out the word "persistently" from tho sub-clause, "Persistently follows such other person about from placo to place." The amendment was agreed to by 31 votes to 18. * Tho Minister moved that Sub-clause 2, of Clauso 2, struck out hy the Statutes Revision Committee, 110 deleted from tho Bill. Tho clause was as follows:—"Attending at or near the houso or placo where a person resides, or works, or carries on business, or happens to bo, or the approach to such house or place, in order merely to obtain or 'communicate information, shall not bo deemed a watching or besetting within tho meaning of this section." The amendment was agreed to by 36 votes to 13. The following members voted against tho amendment: Messrs. Colvin, Crai'gio, Davey, Forbes, Hanan, Hindmarsh, Ngata, Parata, Rangiluroa, Russell, Sidey, .Vcitch, Witty. Inciting. Tho Hon. A. L. Herdman moved to add tho following new clause: —"Any person who incites any other person to commit any offence punishablo by imprisonment, whether on summary conviction or on indictment, shall bo guilty of an olfence punishable on summary conviction by. a hue not exceeding twenty pounds or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months nor exceeding tho maximum term of imprisonment to which a person who commits the first-mentioned offenco is liable."

air. G. W. Russell said ho would liko boforo agreeing to the clauso to have a definition of the word "inciting." Would it apply, for instance, to tho conduct of Sir Edward Carson, who had certainly been guilty of incitement to crime? He was in favour of the clauso if it was to apply to incitement to robbery or assault or such crimes, but he would not bo in favour of tho application of it to a man who made a harebrained speech at a time of industrial trouble. Nor would ho bo in favour of applying it to such people who mado inflammatory speeches as anti-militar-ists.

Tho Hon. A. L. Herdman said the effect of the clauso was to remedy a defect in tho New Zealand law. Tho clauso was intended to apply to tho act of inciting a person to commit a robbery or an assault, or any body of persons to commit any offenco as defined in tho Crimea Act. It would apply, for instance, to the case of a person who- advised a body of'men to attack another person or sot of persons, or to go about smashing property." 'It wa's'iibt intended to restrict tho liberty of free speech. Any man would bo able to induigo in reasonable free speech, as he was ablo to do now. A man could make speeches as inflammatory as he liked, so long as ho did not incite anybody to commit a crima.

Mr. A. 11. Hindmarsh suggested that the Minister ought to accept an amendment to permit offenders charged under this, clause to ho .tried by jury.

The Hon. A. L. Herdman said that ho could not accept tho amendment. 'There wero.offences which it-was considered desirable should bo dealt with summarily, and this offence was one of those. Also, the offenco'was not of great importance, and it was not thought dcsirablo a great deal of tho country's money should be spent in having defendants tried in the ciuprenio Court. Tho Bill was reported with amendments. THE JUDICATURE. APPOINTMENT OF ANOTHER JUDGE. Tho Judicature Amendment Bill (tho Hon. A. L. Herdman) was committed. Mr. T. K. Sidey suggested that a judge, having heard a case in the Supremo Court, should not bo allowed to sit as a member of tho Appeal Court hearing tho appeal against his decision. . Tho Hon. A. L. Herdman said he did not think any express provision to this effect was desirable, seeing that it was the invariable practico for a judgo to refrain 'from sitting on tho Court of Appo.il when his decisions wero under review. Sir Joseph Ward moved! to reduce'tho total number of judges proposed under tho Bill (m'uc, including tho Chief Justice) to eight. Ho waa not sure that ho ought not to move to reduce the mumbcr to seven. Ho maintained that t'ho Minister had never yet nuido out a good caso for tho appointment of two extra judges. The Hon. A. L. Herdman said ho hail already decided to move tho amendment which Sir.Joseph Ward had just moved. "He (Mr.»Herdman) was making this proposal with some hesitancy, for t-he great majority of tin* legal practitioners in New Zealand _ wero strongly in favour of an increase m tho number of Judges of at least two. Tho Hon. 1). Buddo argued that tho number of Judges ought not to bo increased at all. Sir Joseph Ward withdrew his amendment, and the Minister moved one to the same effect, which was agreed to on the voices. On tho motion of Mr. Herdman it was agreed that the Appeal Court Bench should consist of five Judges instead of four, and, as a consequential amendment, it was agreed that certain Judges could at tfce same time belong to both sections or the Court of Appeal. The Hon. I). Buddo moved to add a new clause to fix ;he retiriiu; age df Judges at 7U years Mislead ol 72

The new clause was rejected on the voices. ~, • i . TTtc Bill was reported with ameudnieiils. THIRD READINCS. The three Hills which had been through Commjttce were all read a third time withoif?. debate. EDUCATION RESERVES. The HON W. PHASER, for the Hon. .T. Allen, moved the second reading of tho Kduca'tibn Reserves Amendment Hill. There were two points in the Hill, he said. It was proposed to allow secondary school hoards to borrow at fll per cent, instead of 5 per cent. The. other proposal was to make it possible for the tenants of education reserves to p;et a better tifnuro over their holdings. One object of this latter proposal was to prevent the doterioraiou of tho reserves.

Sir Walter Buchanan pointed out that there was need for improved administration of these Kduciition Reserves. In his district there whs a huw block of 8000 ucros, and there was not, even

on paper, a practicable road to that huge block of country. The Hon. W. Eraser said he was sure a proposal that education reserves should bo administered like onjimiyr Crown lands would commend itself to the House. This proposal would, ho hoped, be submitted to the House next session. Tho second reading was agreed to on the voices. Tho Bill was subsequently put through Committee and read a third time. : ~ DISTRESS LIMITATION. The Hon. A. L. Herd in an moved the second reading of the Distims and Repletion Amendment liii! which, ho explained, had been introduced earlier in tho session by Mr. A. H. Hindmarsh as a private member. The Bill was read a second time on tho voices, put through Committee, and read a third time. MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE. The PRIME MINISTER, moved the second readin got' the Mutual Eire insurance Amendment Bili. Ho explained that it was proposed to extend tho scopo of tho mutual insurance associations which had been doing good work in various part of the country. At present they were restricted to fire insurance, but the Bill empowered them to deal also with workers'- accident insurance. The second reading was agreed to on the voices, and the Bill was put through Committee and passed. The Houso rose at 11.80 p.m..