TIN CLIPPINGS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIX, Issue 118, 21 May 1938, Page 13

TIN CLIPPINGS.

EXPORT BOYCOTT. ✓ — j WATERSIDERS' ACTION. THREAT BT MB. LYONS. (From Out Own Correspondent.) SYDNEY, May 13. For the past three months at various Australian ports, and more particularly at Sydney, the waterside workers have hold up shipping from time to time by refusing to load material which in their opinion might be utilised for the purpose of warfare overseas. They have declined to load scrap iron for Germany because Germany has played an active part in the Spanish war, and they have practically put an embargo on numerous loads of tin clippings intended for the Japanese, whom they regard with intense hostility because of the recent happenings in China. No doubt Japan has been inconvenienced by this boycott, but it is equally clear that this policy has reacted injuriously upon Australian production and Australian shipping, and therefore indirectly upon the workers themselves. The Only Market. Tn the first place, the export of tin clippings to Japan brings in at least £100,000 a year to this country. It i 9 true that Japan can buy tin clippings and scrap iron elsewhere, but it is more convenient for her to deal with Australia. What is more important to us, Japan is practically our only market for this metal refuse, and if the embargo destroys the trade, it is difficult to see where else we can dispose of this surplus. Not only will the direct returns from these sales disappear, but the loss to the canister makers who supply the clippings will be disastrous, and their only remedy will be to raise the price of all tinned metal containers. This, of course, means ultimately an increase in the price of jam, meat, tobacco and many other commodities packed for sale in this way. The reaction upon the industries concerned must be very serious, and one manufacturer has written to the "Sydney Morning Herald" pointing out that his firm alone employs 500 unionists who will find their earnings seriously reduced through this embargo. An interesting side-issue is the question whether the tin clippings exported to Japan are always or generally utilised for the purposes of war. It haa been pointed out that for munition making it is more economical to work with tin bought in ingots, and the chemical process applied to the tin clippings saves only alwut 1} per cent of the metal covering the steel.

As to the sheet steel, it Is not so economical to work with a« iron ore, or the scrap iron which Japan has bought up so assiduously of late. It may also

be pointed out that this tin waste is used in Japan not so much for the making of munitions as an accessory in the manufacture of rayon dress material. The boycott imposed on the export of tin clippings to Japan would thus seem to rave little valid excuse. It may also be asked why the wharf labourers in their laudable desire to obstruct warlike aggression abroad have not interfered with the export of wool, meat, tallow, iron, zinc and other important primary products and by-products, which are obviously and directly used to equip and support armies, and to facilitate military and naval aggression throughout the world. Appeal to Workers. These aspects of the boycott question are less important than the principle, which it involves. When the unions last October proposed this embargo so as to embarrass Japan in her attack upon China, Mr. Lyons appealed to Mr. Curtin to use his influence with the workers, and the A.L.P. leader responded at once. He told the watersiders that any such action on their part, independently of the decisions on the policy of the Federal Government, would be "futile" provocative and dangerous," and for the time this remonstrance had some effect. As the boycott was soon revived, the producers and exporters approached the Prime Minister with a request that he would intervene. At the time, Mr. Lyons, recognising as he said "the sincerity of the waterside workers' feelings," did not feel disposed to take any action. Since then he has been urged repeatedly to prohibit this interference with our maritime interests, and within the past week he has intimated that the time has come for the Federal authority to step in. Senator McLachlan, who is acting-Attorney-General, has come down to Sydney to confer with the navigation officials here, and he has announced that the Government "cannot permit" the watersiders to defy it.

"Dog Collar Act." This warning and various other official references to the situation during the week are understood to mean that if the boycott is maintained the Federal Government will enforce the penal clauses of the Transport Workers' Licensing Act, which would prevent any waterside men from working without licenses. This "Dog Collar Act," as the "Labour Daily" terms it, is extremely obnoxious to the workers. It made Mr. Menzies, who designed and drafted it, even more unpopular than before, and the mere mention of it is always sufficient to rouse the workers to a vehement assertion of their own rights and claims. This week the executive of the New South Wales Employees' Federation sent an official letter to the secretary of the Waterside Workers' Federation warning the union that if the men persisted in enforcing the embargo, an attempt would at once be made to get the Licensing Act enforced here; and the effects of this rather injudicious threat were at once made manifest. According to the "Labour Daily," 4000 federation members in Sydney and 20,000 throughout Australia "are valiantly refusing to surrender their principles," and are prepared to give up their jobs rather than lift the embargo.

At Adelaide the waterside -workers' organisation has passed a resolution virtually defying the Federal Government. The New South Wales officials of the union are equally resolute, and the "Labour Daily" believes that "a bitter industrial struggle is imminent" if Mr. Lyons attempts to break down the boycott by enforcing the "Dog Collar Act" in Sydney. It may be granted that the motives behind the embargo are admirable enough; but this does not mean that the action of the men is justifiable. As the "Sydney Morning Herald" has pointed out, the direction of Australia's trade policy is the function of the Federal Government, which cannot allow any single section of the community to usurp its authortiy in this respect. It argues with much force that any such 'irresponsible interference with a country's oversea trade must inevitably cause dangerous complications and repercussions in our relations with foreign Powers. This embargo, therefore, constitutes "a grave usurpation of Governmental authority"—as Mr. Curtin himself admitted some months ago —and persistence in this boycott would be a challenge which the Federal authorities cannot ignore without surrendering their political responsibilities altogether.