PARLIAMENT THE ADDRESS IN REPLY

Press, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 26470, 11 July 1951, Page 8

PARLIAMENT THE ADDRESS IN REPLY

LABOUR ACTIONS IN STRIKE

MR MACFARLANE REPLIES TO CRITICS (From Our Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, July 10. Government members’ remarks that members of the Parliamentary Labour Party had done nothing to help the Government or the country during the waterfront strike were challenged in the House of Representatives this evening by Mr R. M. Macfarlane (Opposition, Christchurch Central). Speaking in the Address-in-Reply debate, he said that as Mayor of Christchurch and chairman of the Emergency Supplies Committee he had done everything to ensure food supplies for the people of Canterbury and everything else considered necessary. He said that he had his own opinion on the dispute and some of the emergency regulations, but as soon as the committee was set up he had not hesitated to act, and had never mentioned politics. The committee had had differences with the Government, but they had been aired through official channels, and not publicly. Mr Macfarlane said that when a question was asked in the House about coal supplies in Christchurch there were interjections from Government members, “That’s becuase you have a Labour Mayor,” and. “Why don’t you get a decent Mayor."

He added that when volunteers were called for an emergency corps in Christchurch he did not consider they were necessary, and in fact, that it was a reflection on Christchurch that anyone should think special police were necessary. He had not thought there would be any outbreaks of violence, and apart from one or two isolated cases there had not been. He had every confidence in the ordinary oolice force in Christchurch. He had not thought it proper for the City Council Chambers to be used for the enrolment of members of the new waterfront union. The Press. Association reports Mr Macfarlane as saying that he was aware of the attitude of the watersiders over recent years, but as a democrat he believed every dispute should be examined in its actual circumstances before extreme steps were taken, such as introducing emergency regulations. It was these regulations that prolonged the strike. The watersiders had remained loyal to their leaders because they felt they had a case on the wages issue, and because they saw that their national union was being attacked. The present Government when it was the Opposition did nothing to help the Labour Government to solve industrial disputes, and he had aptly described them as rabble rousers.

Criticism of Newspapers Mr Macfarlane added that the industrial crisis, together with the imposition of the emergency regulations, had not produced one newspaper editor with the “intestinal fortitude” to come forward in defence of liberty. The newspapers had proved themselves nothing else than the “paid lackeys and hirelings” of the National Party. The suppression of meetings had contributed materially to a prolongation of the strike, he said. Had the Prime Minister (Mr Holland) and the Minister of Labour (Mr W. Sullivan) permitted the watersiders to come to Parliament and present their views it would, he considered, have led to an early settlement of the dispute, but instead the men were met by police with batons.

If the Government proposed to introduce legislation to suppress Communism he thought that a lot of people with radical minds could be affected by it. Grave doubts had been expressed on the Australian legislation and aims. The way to fight Communism was to point out the effects of its administration in other countries. It could not be dealt with by suppression. The aim of a Government in its fight against Communism should be a more equitable distribution of the nation’s wealth and the giving of assistance to the backward peoples of the world, but that was not Tory policy. He said he would not trust a National Government with powers of suppression. “If we have to adopt Hitlerism or Fascism in this country, we are playing into the hands of the Communists” he said, adding that he spoke in fear of the Government which was slowly showing its hand by its attacks on the masses of the people. Other South Island Members

Other South Island members who spoke to-day were Mr J. B. Kent (Opposition, Westland) and Mr T. L. Hayman (Government Oamaru). Mr Kent said he wondered whether the Government was sure that by its Policy of suppression and starvation the strike would be settled. The dispute had its genesis in the cost of living. Had the Government kept prices down the strike would not have occurred, and-there would not have been the opportunity to smash the leading industrial organisations. The Government had made many promises which it had not kept, but the Prime Minister had kept his promise to discipline the workers at the first opportunity. The Government was aiming at the destruction of what had been built up over many years, and was making New Zealand into a speculators’ and profiteers’ paradise.

Mr Hayman said that the Government had no need to divide the Labour movement. The movement had already achieved that for itself. The Opposition now wanted to close down the debate lest the public learn too much of the Government’s wise handling of the dispute. The Opposition had claimed the emergency regulations attacked individual liberty, but was not the wreckers' attack on the community an attack on the individual? The Opposition had been as badly led as the watersiders themselves. Mr Hayman said that even at this late hour the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Nash). should

acknowledge his mistakes and support the Government in its efforts to reach a full settlement, but he was too stubborn to do so.

The watersiders had shown a unity which had something to commend it, but their leadership had been a tragedy. The quarrel to-day was not with the rank-and-file unionists, who were willing to resume work, but with the leaders, who had caused disruption for years. The New Zealand worker in peace-time did as good a job as the New Zealand soldier in wartime, but there was a vast difference in leadership, because military leadership in war time was highly selective. Peace-time leadership of workers should be no less selective.

Mr W. Freer (Opposition, Mount Albert): Who is going to do the selecting?

Mr Hayman said that the Opposition would be remembered for at least a generation for its failure to contribute anything worth while to the settlement of the strike. The Government had proved itself a friend of the working man, and it would continue in office for a long time. There was no stable Opposition to take its place. He hoped that the country would never forget the debt it owed to the servicemen who had worked on the wharves. Other members who spoke included Mr E. P. Aderman (Government, New Plymouth), Mr R. Macdonald (Opposition, Ponsonby), Mr G. F. Sim (Government, Waikato), Mr P. Kearins (Opposition, Waimarino), Mr A. S. Sutherland (Government, Hauraki), Mr S. W. Smith (Government, Hobson), and Mr A. E. Armstrong (Opposition, Napier).