N.S.W. LABOUR WAR

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 205, 29 August 1936, Page 17

N.S.W. LABOUR WAR

VICTORY OR DEFEAT?

LANG AND HIS OPPONENTS.

A.L.P. EXPULSIONS KESENTED

(From Our Own Correspondent.)

SYDNEY, August 22,

This current week seems likely to mark an epoch in the history of Trades Hall politics here, for three important meetings were scheduled for it, starting on Monday, August 17, with a gathering of the shareholders of the "Labour Daily." It was known that Mr. Lang and the "inner group" had made desperate efforts to secure at least a nominal majority at this meeting in favour of their scheme for a new Sunday paper, and they were successful.

The meeting had been called at the instance of the "rebel" unions, who object to Mr. Lang's project for a Sunday newspaper independent of the "Laboui Daily" management. They formulated resolutions, which would have secuicd the rejection of Mr. Lang's journalistic "plan," and an animated debate followed. It was marked by a vigorous speech from Mr. Tannock defending Mr. Lang's actions in relation to the "Labour °Daily"—with special reference to the loans that he had provided, covered by the famous "debenture."

Mr. Tannock was answered by Mr. Maloney, one of the leading industrialists opposed to Mr. Lang, who, he said, had degraded the Labour movement and discredited the "Labour Daily" by his tactics. But when the resolutions were put to the meeting and a show of hands was taken, the "rebels" were beaten by 188 votes to 110.

Paper Victory for Mr. Lang. This was at least a paper victory for Mr. Lang, and the Trades Hall made the most of it. But the more intelligent and thoughtful of the "rebels" were riot in the least disheartened. They issued a statement next day on behalf of the industrialists, in which they pointed out that the regulation giving each union the same voting power at the meeting made the show of hands entirely misleading. "Union shares constitute 75 per cent of the total shares held in the 'Labour Daily' by the unions opposed to the policy of Mr. Lang and his fellow directors, and represent 90 per cent of the union vote. The majority of those persons who voted against" the unions' proposals held less than five shares, and yet were given equal voting rights with the representatives of unions holding from 50 to 10,000 shares, which could not be recorded on a show of hands." The "rebel" unions are therefore confident that they can reverse the decision of Monday's meeting when the poll of shareholders is taken —in accordance with the articles of association —for and against Mr. Lang's proposals; and this poll has been fixed for the first week in September.

Meantime, the direct conflict between the political and the industrial wings of the State Labour movement proceeds apace. I have already explained how the Trades Hall executive took the bold step of threatening to expel from the movement all members of the Labour party who attended the "black" conference of August 1. About 50 individual members of the A.L.P. have received letters requesting them to "explain" their conduct in attending, and indicating plainly that failure to satisfy the executive will be followed by expulsion. Trades Hall and Rebels. It is obvious that the Trades Hall cannot afford to expel all the "rebels" and deprive itself of their contributions, and it is believed that the Inner Group would be content to expel formally a few of the "rebel" leaders —Malony, Kilburn and Schrieber for example—so as to intimidate the rest. But the industrial unions are not prepared to "take it lying down." They at once issued a formal reply on behalf of all the "rebels" in place of the required "explanation," stating that the executive by declaring the conference of August 1 "black" was interfering with the unchallenged right of the unions to face discussions of industrial affairs.

During the week the balance began to swing more heavily to the industrial side, and a remarkable "sign of the times" was the revolt of the powerful gas employees' union against Mr. Lang, and its decision to support tlie "rebels." Then 011 Thursday night last came a special meeting called 'by the Labour Council at the Trades Hall to consider the whole situation. No less than 72 unions were represented by nearly 150 delegates, and they carried a series of resolutions of an aggressive and defiant character. The meeting unanimously "declared its whole-hearted support of the decisions of the August 1 conference, and viewed with disgust the threat of expulsion." More than this, the meeting unanimously recorded its conviction that the threatened expulsion of trade union leaders who carried out the instructions of their unions, is another proof of the desire of the Inner Group junta to dominate and intimidate the industrial movement.

Vituperative Rhetoric. Of course the discussion of these proposals gave ample scope for the vituperative rhetoric in which the Langites are fond of indulging; but the "rebels" had their way. Not content with these successes they passed further resolutions refusing to recognise the right of the A.L.P. to expel any unionist for attending tlie "black" conference of August 1, and binding itself to take all necessary steps to defend unionist members. All this is highly illuminating and instructive, more especially in view of the third meeting which is to close this eventful week —the special A.L.P. conference called for Saturday next. At this conference all the questions of policy in regard' to the "Labour Daily," j the proposed Sunday newspaper, audi the threatened expulsions will probably! come up for review, and if the industralists are not completely" outmanoeuvred, they are apparently strong enough to inflict a crushing defeat on the Inner Group and Mr. Lang.