Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. Vol 37, No. 16. July 10, 1974

'What are injunctions, anyway?'

page 5

'What are injunctions, anyway?'

The recent controversy has shown how little most people know about injunctions. Basically an injunction is a judicial order, awarded if a plaintiff can show the court that someone's action will interfere with his lawful activity. If awarded it puts restraint on the action or compels restitution to the plaintiff.

Apart from the unions issue, injunctions have been sought on various issues recently. Pat Bartlett sought one to stop Alister Taylor from publishing "The Patricia Bartlett Cookbook". Two right-wing students sought one (unsuccessfully) to stop the Students Association from sending money to the Vietnam Medical Aid Appeal. Last year the Waikato University Council succeeded in getting an injunction against Carl Gordon, student representative on Council, barring him from meetings. This is as present still subject to court action.

There is a similarity in all these cases, and indeed in most injunctions—despite Finlay's assurances that anyone can get an injunction, applications tend to come from conservative interests, against more progressive elements. As was the case against Bill Andersen and against the electricians' in Wellington, injunctions can be granted speedily (under 24 hours in Auckland), and it is quite possible that the defendant's case is not heard. In view of the complicated legal procedures that are required to fight these measures, and their binding nature, the law should be revised in any case. There are also many other considerations in their application to industrial affairs.

There are many factors against use of strike action, the only effective source of power workers have. These include the facts that strikers lose their pay, and that they are subject to a barrage of anti-union propaganda, particularly from the right-wing press. There is also a general feeling in the community, fed by the press, National Party and now (revealingly) Labour, that strikes are against the 'national interest'. These alone are potent weapons, supplemented by industrial arbitration procedures which often oppose the workers interests. Bringing injunctions into industrial matters further hampers workers rights, making them subject to two different legal procedures. In the particular case in Auckland, Dromgoole was ruled against by an industrial court, a ruling he ignored for seven months without doing anything about it. His injunction was granted within a day. Is this what Finlay meant by everyone being equal before the law?

A point that has emerged clearly from the events of the past week has been the subservience of both the legal machinery and the Government to the employers. On Tuesday night the Government went into speedy action on the collapse of the Cornish financial concern that appears to have gambled safety for quick bucks, and lost. Does Kirk really want the country to believe that no pressure was brought on him in this matter? Yet in the injunctions issue, a cause that was supported by his own party conference (despite a strongly anti-union speech by the 'liberal' Minister of Justice) he proudly announces that the Government will not consider any proposals while pressure is upon it.

The discrepancy of treatment meted to unions and businesses goes far further than this. National and Muldoon in particular last election made great noises about Labour's ties with the FOL, yet none criticises National's links with the employers. The easy way in which Labour look over these interests gives good indication of the power capitalists have in New Zealand, no matter who the fronting 'Government' is. Such links are (not surprisingly) never criticised by the press, which accepts them as the natural state of affairs.

Readers of the 'From the Courts' feature in Salient will be well aware of the discrimination between rich and poor in our 'justice' system. While contained to a certain extent in the statutes, such as the disparity between strong deregistration laws and hopelessly inadequate consumer protection, in the courts it is observable in its full radiant glory in practice. For example, middle class youths can get off a charge of vandalism through a good lawyer and pleas of "youthful high spirits"; lower class equivalents are sent to borstal. Finlay's comment on equality before the law are morally empty—the courts clearly do treat different class backgrounds differently.

The discrimination goes much further than this, however. Labour's promises to pensioners, to the poor of more doctors and improved benefits have been all but forgotten—those to the manufacturers have been more than fulfilled. This must be the state of affairs when one class has a dominant position in society, as the employers and financial concerns have in ours. The state, and particularly its education system, obscures and mystifies the continual antagonism between employers and the workers they exploit. It does not take much analysis to see who benefits from this.

It is clear that while the Government can and does make some concessions to workers (and to other oppressed groups in society) its committment to the status quo forbids it from attempting any major reconstruction. The beneficiaries of the present arrangement can feel secure with a reformist Labour Party of this mould. The controversy over Bill Andersen and injunctions has revealed this situation, and the necessity of strong counter action to many people. There is still a large number saying "Give the Labour Government a fair go." They've had a fair go, and they've shown that they do not and will not serve the interests of the people who put them into office.

"So what if it's got no wheels. You surely don't want it to Go anywhere"

"So what if it's got no wheels. You surely don't want it to Go anywhere"