National's Mandate

He said that it was ludicrous to argue that because the National Government had been elected it had a mandate to do whatever it liked. Toeing the Skinner-Douglas line, Ted Thompson said that he was neither disturbed nor surprised by the proposed legislation, and that what was needed most was a solid united front.

The discussion which followed centred round the basic issues of "how much is this proposed repressive industrial legislation a threat to trade union activity? Should we fight it now, and if so how? Ken Douglas argued that it didn't matter what legal barriers were imposed to trade union activity as nothing could defeat organised labour.

However, as Jim Turner pointed out, the trade union movement needs civil liberties in order to advance its cause. (As was ably demonstrated in the 1951 dispute, repression breeds eventual destruction of trade unions). He added that it was important to protest against the law itself, to educate the public and workers to its fascist implications and in the process create a friendly environment towards unions.

Douglas continued to say that if employers used any part of the legislation, e.g. the suspension clause, then workers would quickly and effectively retaliate. The results of this retaliation would force the employers to pressurise government to change the legislation. Jim Turner pointed out that these measures would have an effect on the employers but would eventually fail, as the general public would lose sympathy with the workers and demand the enactment of the legislation e.g. if you're stranded on the Ngauranga Gorge because of the Drivers' dispute then the likelihood of your maintaining any sympathy is fairly remote.