REFORM M.P. v. UNIONIST

Press, Volume XLVIII, Issue 14408, 16 July 1912, Page 3

REFORM M.P. v. UNIONIST

AX INTERESTL\G DEBATK- ' (SPKCIAL TO "THE VRESS-"'* AUCKLAND, July: 15.;. | Ah interesting debate took place s n-o-rnmi; batween Mr .j. H. Bradney. J M.P., nnd members of. the Auckland , AVaterside Workers' Union, concerning what views Mr Bradney, as a member of the Massey Government, held upon the arbitration law.;. Mr Bradney nt the invitation of the Union to their rooms and met several hundred members of the organisation. The question was introduced by Mr McGregor, who asked how Mr Bradney viewed the position, at Waihi, where 150 men were endeavouring to form a new union in tho hope of compelling hundreds of others to join against their will. Was it not a caso of the minority wanting to rulo the majority? Mr Bradnev: It is the law; they are within their 'rights. If you want redress take political action; get a majority of members into tho House, aim then you can amend the law as you de- j ■*ire. i Mr Scholield: The Act as it stands is i cood enough for the employers, but not ( for us. ■ I Mr Bradnev: It would be a sorry day ; fcr New Zealand if the Arbitration Act j was wiped off the Statute Book. It it 1 is not now perfect, it can ho amended, always provided that you are fair to . both/sides. When you forget that, you will do more to damn your cause than anything else. Mr Schofield: We represent .85 per cent, of tho people. Mr Bradiiey: You cannot ignore the minority. Mi- Schofield: They aro on the backs of tho 85 r>er cent. Mr Bradney: I have been through the mill myself, and I am going to do my best for you, but 1 am not going to forget tho other side. . I adviso you in your Own interests-riot to throw the Act over; don't trust yourself to an irresponsible lxidy. Mr '.Schoheld: Thero is no call for ! that- remark. ! Mr Bradney: Tako the Seamen's ] Union, of which body I was once a member. They have an agreement outside I the Act, but they want to come back I within its scope. Don't make the mistake of thinking you can run this coun- ! try outside of the law. I "Mr Scholield: We let 15 per cent, run Lit now. : ,Mr. Woodward: To get back to the I. point, is not the creation of these small ' unions a perversion of thc law? It was ; never intended that lo men should i dominate 5000. i 'Mr Bradney: That is a question ior the Crown law officers. j j Mr Woodward: No, for common j I sense. ■ . ' ' * ■ Mr Schofield: J>id not the lato-Mr ' Seddon publicly state in Sydney just before his death that the Act was moro in the interests of the employing class than tho working class- 5 '■ v I■ Mr Bradney: Mr Seddon vtes the best ' friertd the working man ever hacrbn tho Treasury benches, and ho believed in the Arbitration Act. Mr McGregor: Aro you a; worker or a capitalist? . ._ 1 Mr Bradney (with-some wrath): I have worked in.this city for 6s por day. and never known where my next meal was coming from. If T had to commence again to-morrow, it would ho off my own bat. with no appeals to .a paternal Government. 1 never hank-: ered to he rich. What I have always ; mos-t prized has been my independence, and I want always to bo in a-.liosition to tell any man to go to Hades ifUwant 1 toy .■• *• * "*" v •.'■ '■•' "■•' I Mr Schofield: Don't be offended, and don't misunderstand. As a wage earner you wero class conscious: as a wago payer you are now class conscious; you aro a fair .foe. , '" , Mr Bradney:'ln'this* country every man is politically equal, ■• and'- thfjro should be no class distinction. Tf you owned a street full of houses you would conservo them. Mr Schofield: Sure.

Mr Bradney: Wo aro all workers in this country: thero ,should be no antagonism and-no class distinction. If you want reforms, get. them through political action. Tlio Massey Govern'inent is, I believe, going to do, good work, bnt if I thought for one moment 1 that there was not going to be *,fftir legislation providing equal opportunity I for all; th&n my allegiance would end.