Greymouth Evening Star. TUESDAY, JANUARY 7, 1947. Wharf Dispute—--The Real Issue

Greymouth Evening Star, 7 January 1947, Page 4

Greymouth Evening Star. TUESDAY, JANUARY 7, 1947. Wharf Dispute—--The Real Issue

many weeks of delay the Government has at last acted decisively in the waterfront, dispute. The sequence of events is obvious. In conference the Government and the Federation of Labour worked out their policy, and, assured of support, the Government laid aside its dilatoriness and took steps which it should have taken much earlier. Its action is, however, none the less welcome. Its ultimatum was simple and direct. Either the watersiders returned to normal conditions on the waterfront as an essential preliminary to a negotiated settlement or else

the Government would use its emergency powers to discipline a union which has shown itself contemptuous of all authority but its own. Those powers have now been exercised.

Mr. Fraser’s Government faces a crucia ;est. So also does the Federation o

Labour, for it is-apparent that the future

policy of the industrial movement in New Zealand, and not merely the rights and wrongs of the watersiders’ present claims, is the real issue at stake. Some of the recent inflammatory utterances .of the watersiders’ leaders have revealed their preparedness th declare class warfare on an intensified scale. The rank and file of the union have been content to follow the path laid down for them by their leaders, and it would be as well if they were to subject the utterances of these men to close examination. Statements made recently by these men on matters far removed from the issues at stake suggest that they are aiming at the principle of responsible government. Mr. T. Hill, national secietaiy of the Watersiders’ Union, commenting on the election, had this to say: “A hundred years after Karl Marx, William Morris and Robert Owen, it is frightening to recall that every second person in New

Zealand knows no better than to vote for the National Party.” This utterance, for an understanding* of its full meaning,

should be read in conjunction with the heading of Mr. Hill’s article,'which is. “It seems to me . . . Labour must fight.” The union president, Mr. Barnes, is more direct than Mr. Hill. “Despite what may be said to the contrary,” he writes, “we live'in a class system of society, and one section can only profit at the expense of another. We have got the right to demand that our conditions be improved at the cost of our traditional exploiters.” Mr. Hill also has something direct to say on future policy. “We must be readj 7 and willing to run our own industries,” he declares. The Labour Party, he also stated, must be “rebuilt from the bottom—and then the top will take care of itself.” Advising the Prime Minister, he declares: “To Peter Fraser I say, timidity to-day is fatal. Take the people into your confidence. Lead them boldly in your battles and they won’t let yon down.” Challenge Clear.

The challenge is clear. The utterances of the waterfront leaders go right to the root of our democratic system. They mean just class war, and that when the Labour Party is “rebuilt from the bottom” a different “top” will be in charge. The purpose is obvious. Mr. Fraser has accepted the challenge. He now has a further duty. There has hung ovei; the negotiations of ihe past month a cloud of intrigue, and it is for him now clearly to show that the settlement of the dispute will not be accomplished by means tantamount to “buying off” the malcontents. It must be said that trouble in which he now finds himself is somewhat of his own making in that in the past his Government when faced with similar situations, has adopted a weakkneed attitude which has resulted only in the encouragement of contempt for lawful authority. The battle is now on; its progress will be watched with the keenest interest, for it is not to be supposed that the Left Wing will lightly give way on the major issues involved, even if a face-saving

method of resolving the, present impasse is found. Mr. Fraser,' as Prime Minister, still derives his authority from the people as a whole and cannot abdicate it in favour of a small but militant section of the community. Mr. Hill may be concerned over the fact that 100 years after Karl Marx a new “top” has not been established in New Zealand, but he would be well advised to take into consideration the attitude of at least half the electorate. They will most certainly not stand for dictatorship. Mr. Fraser and other responsible Labour leaders have apparently in recent times become increasingly aware of that fact. The issue before them, —and the people to whom they are responsible—is clear. The Government must prove its capacity to rule.