REFORM PARTY.

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 258, 31 October 1928, Page 13

REFORM PARTY.

A ND industrial goodwill.

JOE RECENT conference.

after ten years.

(By T. BLOODWORTH.)

The Keform Tarty, by its published Section manifesto and by the speeches of its candidates, is attempting to claim for itself full credit for calling the Industrial Conference this year, and for any good which may have been done to industry and industrial relations in New Zealand as a result oi that conference. 10 making this claim the Reform party is ignoring certain historic facta, and depending for acceptance of its claim upott the proverbial short memories of the people* more especially of the working ueopie. It is true the Reform Government did call the conference this year. It is aI BO tr ue that they declined to call ft earlier. The idea that a conference Should be held this year did not originate w jth » member of the Reform Party, but to go far as any individual can claim credit for the idea, I am that individual. The idea was taken up by the Reform government, not so much because they wanted the conference, as because holding the conference offered the Government a way out of the horrible muddle (hey had got themselves into by their 1917 proposals for amendments to the Arbitration Act. The first proposal for »n industrial conference wag made by the Federation of Labour, in 1919. I was at that time president of the federation. I m et the Acting-Prime Minister tnd discussed the proposal with him, but though the Minister himself seemed favourable to the idea, his reply was that the conference must await tne return of Ministers who were then away at the peace Conference. The New Zealand Employers' Federation held a special meeting in Wellington on June 10th, 1920, for the purpose of considering the best means to adopt for promoting industrial peace. One of the things considered was our proposal for an industrial conference. A published report of the findings of that special meeting includes this:— c "That in view of the announced aims and intentions of prominent sections of official labour, it is the opinion of this meeting that a national conference between representatives of capital and organised labour would be futile."— ("N.Z. Herald," Juno 11, 1020.) Commenting on that decision, the "N.Z. Herald," June 21, 1920, said:—"With the best intentions, the Employers' Federation has denied the public the opportunity of allocating the responsibility. Until it recedes from that position it will be accused by enemies and friends alike of blocking negotiations which might be fruitful, and would at least be illuminating. . . • It is of the utmost importance that the two parties to industry should get together as soon as possible to diagnose the causes of which inefficiency, strikes, and go-slow, are lymptdttis." The next proposal for an industrial conference I made in 1922, when the Court of Arbitration proposed a system of wage-fltflJbilisation. I said that before such a system was adopted a conference of the parties should be held to fully consider the whole field of industrial relations.

The next proposal of the kind came from the president of the New Zealand Employers' Federation, Mr. (now the Hon.) T. Shailer Weston, who, In his presidential address, delivered on October 22, 1025, made certain suggestions to Labour, and concluded: — "If they do this, I am sure that all employers will be prepared to meet them, Ma if that policy is faithfully adhered to by both sides, and, above all, encouraged by the leaders on both sides, I am confident that the beneficial results all Mtutd will Astonish any reasonable (Observer." I was asked my opinion of Mr. iWeston's suggestion and said in the "N Z. Herald" October 28, 1925:— "I am perfectly certain that a consul' Ution' between the two parties can dono harm and if begun in the right spirit by both sides it might do a whole lot of good. ... If the Employers' Association adopts Mr. Weston's view and issues the invitation I would advise the onions to take part in the conference." The invitations, however, were not totted, and nothing further was heard of proposals for a National Industrial Conference until 1927, when the Government's proposed amendments to the I.C. »nd A. Act were introduced. Those 7 . amendments were eventually referred to ' the Labour Bills Committee of the House, and in giving evidence before that Committee on behalf of Auckland unions, I suggested that the amendments should be withdrawn and that an industrial conference, composed of representatives of all interested parties, should meet, discuss the position generally, and advise the Government as to what alterations, if »ny, were required in our industrial laws. The Government called the conference, bat the suggestion that it ahould be called did not come from the Reform Party. It came in 1927," as it had come in 1919, from members of the Labour movement. It took almost ten years to get the Reform Government to adopt a good idea. A Reform election manifesto now declares:— "The Coates Government has sought to promote industrial peace by bringing workers and employers together in a sipirit of good will. Thp ludustrial Conference did splendid work in this direction, and is to be continued." If the Coates Administration are to take credit to themselves for having adopted a suggestion of the Labour movement in 1927, should they not also be blamed for not having adopted tho same suggestion when it was made to them years earlier?