WHEN THE LAW WAS LAWLESS

Grey River Argus, 1 April 1932, Page 2

WHEN THE LAW WAS LAWLESS

INDUSTRIAL HISTORY REVIEWED

The Tragedy of Waihi

Speaking on the second reading of the I.C. & A. Amendment Bill, Mr H. E. Holland (Leader of the Opposition), said: While the debate was proceeding in connection with this Bill on Friday 1 was struck by the fact that a number of speakers on the Government benches rose with the statement is-

sued by the Employers’ Federation in their hands. I had a copy of that statement, and I followed their speeches closely, and in nearly every case the speeches of the members referred to were almost identical with the matter contained in the Employers’ statement. That seemed to me to be significant. WAGES MUST COME DOWN. I was also struck by the fact that a number of the speakers insisted that wages must come down. They seemed to ignore altogether the 10 per cent reduction in wages that has already been imposed, and that in a multitude of cases the men who are receiving what is now the standard wage, are only working two or three days a week. I would like to know from some members on the Government benches what is the irreducible minimum to which they desire to bring wages down. Are we to drag wages down below the point at which the worker can maintain a wife and family up to the ordinary standards of decency and comfort?

A FOUNDATION PRINCIPLE. Should it not be a foundation principle that the amount of wages paid —there is a vast difference between the rate and the amount —should constitute for him and his family a decent standard of living? It cannot possibly be argued that this country cannot pay a decent living wage to its workers, and yet we have had it insistently claimed from the Government benches that wages must come down, apparently irrespective of whether men and their wives and children can live on the amount they will receive when wages are still further reduced. I know that the position of many of our farmers is bad, but there is this wide difference between the farmer in any community and the or dinary wage worker: When the wageworker becomes disemployed, especially under conditions such as prevail at the present time, there is only a week or a fortnight between himself and his family and starvation. Bad as the plight of the farmer is, he is always assured of his food supply. That is the main difference between the farmer and the wage-worker, however bad the position of the farmer may be. CAPITAL VERSUS LABOUR. The Bill before the House is only a phase of the series of conflicts between capital and labour in this country. At. first the Labour movement was almost unanimously in favour of the principle of compulsory arbitration, both in

Australia and here. Later, there came a divergence of opinion, and at different times the Labour movement was widely divided on the subject. From 35 to 20 years ago many of us attacked the system of compulsory arbitration, especially when we found that the machinery of the system was being manipulated to the detriment of the working men and women of the respective countries. We make no secret of our opposition in the past. RISING AND FALLING MARKETS. As a matter of fact, both workers and employers have alternately supported and opposed the principle, in accordance with changing circumstances. On a rising market, the larger and stronger unions can secure better terms by negotiation than they can get through the Court; on a rising market, therefore, the employers will want the Court, and many of the stronger unions will not want it. Oi. a falling market the Court is the only protection the Unions have, particularly the weaker unions, such as thoso which contain women workers. Consequently, on a falling market the employers advocate the abolition of the Court, because they feel that with the Court out of the way they can impose lower wages and longer hours. They can withhold privileges won in better times. It was a recognition of this fact that impelled Mr Goodfellow to tell the Special Economic Committee that he preferred the lock-out and the strike to the Arbitration Court. MR. GOODFELLOW’S VIEW. Of course, that is only an employer’s viewpoint . coloured by the existing conditions. Mr Goodfellow would never have thought of saying that in 1912, 1913, or 1914. An hon. Member: He advocated 8/-. Mr Holland. I am reminded that he pointed out to us that in Denmark general labourers are paid 5/- a day, and in Canada 8/-, and he said that the wage rate for labourers in this country should be brought down to 8/- per day. He recognised that the Court would not be likely to bring wages down to 8/- a day, so he said: “ Let us have the lock-out; let us have I the strike, rather than the Court.” THE PRINCIPLE OF COMPULSION. With regard to the compulsory provisions of the existing Act, every one who has thought out the subject recognises that if wo are to have arbitration it can only be on a compulsory basis, if it is to be effective. Pro fessor Condliffe, in his book on New Zealand, draws pointed attention to the fact that the powers of compul-

sion were regarded by Mr Reeves as the very marrow and essence of the whole system. Mr Smith: That is nearly forty years ago. Mr Holland: Oh, yes; I am giving the hon. member, who mostly lives in the atmosphere of 100 years ago, the viewpoint of one of the leaders of his party of that day. ALTERED CONDITIONS. The hon. gentleman when he was speaking said: “My father stood for all the social legislation of his day,” and then he proceeded to indicate to us that he was not going to follow in his father’s footsteps. Mr Smith: Altered conditions. Mr Holland: I will admit that the conditions have altered. If the hon. gentleman will look up Hansard be will find Captain Russell asserting that conciliation without arbitration is all humbug. VESTED INTERESTS’ POLICY. As we know, the vested interests in this country fought the legislation when it was introduced, and, when they failed to defeat it, they set out to endeavour to capture the machinery of the system. Up to a point, they were successful. But now, with a falling market, they feel that they no longer need the Court, and they seek, through their Government, to destroy it. THE DEPRESSION OF LAST CENTURY.

We all know that towards the end of the ’eighties of last century and in the opening years of the ’nineties this country was passing through an economic depression, not of course so great in its intensity as the present depression, because the population then was immensely smaller than it is at the present time, but still with disastrous consequences. At that time we had a Government in office whose politics and 'whose administration was parallel to the politics and administration of the present Government, made up, as the present Government is, of a combination of Liberals and Conservatives, but wholly dominated by the Conservatives. As the Rt. Hon. Minister of Public Works has said, the United Party has wholly accepted the policy of the Reform Party.

THE LESSON OF 1890. In the year 1890 the maritime strike came. In such a year of depression industrial action was not likely to be successful, but the effect of the adverse economic and industrial conditions was accentuated by the fact that the Government in office did not hesitate to use in the interests of the employers whatever laws were on the statute book or to write other laws in the interests of the employers. The employees were hopelessly defeated, their unions wrecked, and a stage reached where the industrial organisations were refused recognition. Wages and working conditions became worse than ever before. THE WORKERS TAKE POLITICAL ACTION. It was at this stage that the working men began to turn their eyes in the direction of political action. A Radical-Liberal movement was then coming into the sunlight; and the Labour movement allied itself with that movement. The Liberal-Labour alliance went to the country against the strongly entrenched forces of Toryism. The Alliance had to meet strong newspaper opposition as well as strong platform opposition, and the Alliance won out.

THE FIRST ARBITRATION BILL. Coming into office in 1891, they introduced their first Arbitration Bill. That Bill was fought, as I have said, by the vested interests; while it was supported wholly by the workers and by some employers. Three times the Bill passed this House, and twice it was rejected by the Legislative Council; and rejected because it contained the compulsory principle. It was not until 1894 that the Bill became law; and from that year until 1908 there was very little industrial conflict in this country. It was round about that period that Henry Dumarest Lloyd wrote his book, "A Country Without. Strikes. ” INDUSTRIAL TROUBLES OF 190 b. However, in 1908, industrial troubles began to develop, and tho workers began to lose faith in the Arbitration Court. In 1908 the Court refused to grant an award to the Canterbury; Agricultural and Pastoral Labourers’ Union. If I remember aright, the late Minister for Agriculture, Mr David Jones, appeared on that occasion against the Union, and Mr James Thorn, now editor of "The New Zea land Worker,’’ appeared for the labourers. In the same year trouble, arose at the Blackball Mine owing to the fact that the miners were refused half an hour in which to eat their midday meal. The employers were insist ing that the meal time should be fif teen minutes. A strike occurred, and the men were prosecuted ostensibly for striking, but really for refusing to eat their meal in fifteen minutes. I remember a somewhat humorous incident, while the hearing was proceeding. The men were prosecuted, as I have said for wanting more than fifteen minutes in which to eat their midday meal j and the Court adjourned tho

proceedings for two hours while its members went to lunch. THE STRIKE AT WAIHI. The Wellington Tramway strike, arising out of the spy system on the trams, came in the same year; and that was succeeded by various minor 1 troubles until the year 1912, when, following the advent of the Reform Party i into office, trouble arose at Waihi. The: underworld was then combed to find j men to fight the unionists, and Waihi was filled with material of the calibre of Harvey (alies Ormerod), the 11 Snake Charmer,” and others. Having got their men of the underworld, they formed a bogus union. They had the Government behind them. THE LAWLESS LAW. The Miners’ Hall was attacked by men marching under police protection: and tho hall was illegally seized by them. The Court some years later or dered the hall to be restored to its rightful owners and gave damages against those who had forcibly brok en into and taken possession of it. It will be remembered that Frederick Evans was killed in the conflict which ensued while the hall was being captured. Round about the same period homes were attacked and men, women and children were driven out —driven from the homes in which they had lived for years. Lawlessness and disorder ran riot under .police protection. The police were not to blame; the Government of the day was to blame. A town was wrecked, and men, women and children were driven from Their homes and scattered throughout the length and breadth of New Zealand. Many of them would have experienced starvation as well as destitution if it had not been for the manner in which the Miners’ Unions of the West Coast of the South Island and the various labour organisations in Auckland and throughout New Zealand generally, rose to tho occasion and stood by them. A STILL MORE DREADFUL EVENT

That terrible incident in the history of New Zealand was followed by a still more dreadful experience at Huntly. A conflict arose between the mine-owners and the Huntly miners. The town was invaded by police. Mon were blacklisted and boycotted out of the mines. Families were compelled to leave the homes they had spent the best part of their lives in building up, and were scattered throughout New Zealand. This was done under Government auspices. In the office of the mine-owners a bogus union was constituted—l was almost going to say formed, but it was never formed. The union was registered with Government assistance, and, although the law re quired that any union to be registered must have fifteen financial members, this particular union did not hive a single financial member one month after it had been registered. Our law was then so peculiar that once a fraudulent union was registered it could not be de-registered. THE HUNTLY HOLOCAUST. Rules were written in the mine manager’s office. The secretary and president of the new union were appointed in tho same office. The secretary was made check inspector, and it transpired that he could not read the anemometer. The result was that there was no real cheek inspector of the mine. Tn addition, Government inspection of the mine was neglected, as those who have, read the report of tho Huntly disaster Royal Commission will remember. The mine was both gassy and dusty, an 1 because there was no proper inspector and no adequate volume of air ui the mine the explosion camo, resulting in the loss of 43 lives. Honourable gentlemen on the Government benches should read the scathing speech of Sir Thomas Wilford (then Mr T. M. Wilford), now High Commissioner fo*’ New Zealand, when he appeared foi’ the relatives of the men whoso lives were lost in that appalling disaster.

TROUBLE AT WELLINGTON. Along with the developments at Huntly came the trouble at Wellington, when, towards the close of 1913, an attack was made by the shipowners on a small body of shipwrights— an attack which, in my opinion, was deliberately precipitated for tho purpose of creating industrial strife in thii country. The shipowners knew that, there was industrial unrest and that sooner or later there would be a conflict, and it suited them to have the conflict in November instead of m the beginning of the following year They played their cards accordingly, and the working men did as they have done on so many occasions. They allowed tho other side to choose both the battle-ground and the battle-day. As soon as the shipwrights were attacked, the watersiders rallied to their support. The miners stood by the watersiders. A QUAKER MILITANT. Then we witnessed a peculiar development. The men who are to-day coming to the Government demanding that the Act shall be wiped out, then came in their hundreds to the city of Wei lington and to other cities; they came armed with batons, and sometimes i more lethal weapons; they came with the express purpose of holding the workers to the Arbitration Court. M • W. B. Mathieson, who interviewed the Prime Minister the other day with a demand for this legislation, is a Quaker who does not believe in force, and yet in 1913 along with others he came, swinging a baton, and with a military tread that shook the earth, to drive the workers back to tho Arbitration Court bv force.

BOGUS UNION FORMED. Not. only was this done, but a bogus union was formed by men who had never worked on the wharf, who had nc legal claim to be regarded as waterside workers, and who met under the presidency of a member of this parliament, who himself had never

been a waterside worker. The hon. member for Masterton will know to whom I am referring. They formed and registered a bogus union. They wrote its rules, apparently under the supervision of the shipping companies, and these rules provided that no one was to get work on the wharves unless he came in as a member of the bogus union.

HOW THE RULES WERE WRITTENNot only that, but they wrote the rules so that those rules could not be altered within a year; and bona fide Unionists, when eventually they came back to work, had to accept employment under these rules that had been illegally made for them by men who had never been waterside workers. The gentlemen who in 1913 came down, armed, to drive the unionists of this city back into the Arbitration Court, are now demanding with threatening gesture that the Government destroy the Arbitration Court. T wonder if hon. members can think out the reason for that. The reason is that the economic, interests of certain sections dominate their thoughts and actions. While it was in their interests to hold to the Court in 1913-14, to-day they sen that if they can get. rid of thf Court, they can impose worse conditions on the working men of this country than ever they endured previously. T venture to say that what is now being aimed at is to bring the workers back to a standard that will be as bad as that which prevailed in the late ’eighties and the early ’nineties of last century.

WHEN JURIES WERE PACKED. Everything that was done in the 1913 period was done in collusion with the Government of the day. The Government know of the illegalities, but did nothing in the direction of prosecuting those who were guilty. On the contrary, members of the Government were parties to the law-breaking. When prosecutions arising out of the industrial trouble were, instituted against men connected with the unions, we found that juries were deliberately packed, and verdicts were secured which could not have been obtained otherwise. Mr Coates: Oh dear! Oh dear! Surely tho hon. gentleman does not mean that? Mr Holland: If the right hon. gentleman had listened to Mr Wilford—now Sir Thomas Wilford—when he was Leader of tho Opposition in this House, he would know that that gentleman, who was one of the counsel in the 1913 cases, said in this House, what [ am saying here to-dav, ana, if he wants proof of it, I will giv° him that proof any day he likes. Mr Coates: Tho hon. gentleman surely cannot have much respect for the Courts. HOW THE PACKING WAS DONE Mr Holland: The hon. gentleman surely understands the jury system o x ’ this country? lie should know that the accused can only challenge a limited number of jurors, but the Crown Prose ecutor can stand aside every man in the panel, and then go outside of the panel into the body of the Court for the men he wants. If he is not sat isfied there, he can go out into the street for the 12 men ho wants. The juries in the 1913 strike cases were parked by standing aside every work ing man called as a juror unless he had carried a baton during the strike. The men comprising the juries were either big business men, who, natural iy, were antagonistic to the unions, or they were working men who had been special constables in the strike. I know that there was nothing illegal about that method, but it was packing he jury all the same. If the rigl/ hon. gentleman stands for that meth od of choosing jurymen, we do not. The Crown should be put in exactly the same position as the accused with regard to the number of challenges.

IN THE WAR YEARS. So much for the years 1913-1914. In the war years, the price of primary produce soared and the cost of living rose in proportion, but wages never caught up with the increase in the cost of living. The Court was then invoked, not to hold wages down to their existing money expression level, but to ensure that wages in their purchasing power did not rise beyond a certain level. The right hon. gentleman may remember two incidents of that period. The miners demanded a 174 pei cent increase in their wages to meet an increase in the cost of living which amounted to at least 40 or 50 per cen*. The Government wanted wool for war purposes, and the wool-kings intimated that they would not sell their wool unless they got a 55 per cent, increase ir. pre-war prices.

MINERS AND WOOL KINGS The miners’ leaders were seized in their homes in the dead of night and spirited away without their wives and families knowing where they were taken to—they were taken to Auckland as a matter of fact, and thrown into prison there, while later on the representatives of the Government went to England and secured for the woolkings the 55 per cent, increase in wool' prices demanded by them. Is it any wonder that further antagonisms to the Arbitration Court developed in the 1 ranks of the wage workers? As circumstances have changed, the attitude of many of the workers towards the Court have changed. The wage workers at certain times have stood for the Court, and at other times they have been against the Court. The sam e thing applies to the employers. EMPLOYERS’ PRESENT MOVE. To-day the employers are endeavouring to get the Government to move ir. the direction they desire by passing this Bill, which will practically destroy everything that the industrial organisations in this country have won in the past, either by agreement made outside of the Court, or by awards and agreements made under the jurisdic-

tion of the Court. This Bill, as I read it, will lengthen the hours of labour. The Prime Minister knows that this U part of its purpose—to lengthen the hours of labour; and, if we do that, everyone knows that the number of men who are employed will be increased. Labour-displacing machinery is coming into industry in New Zealand, as in all other countries, invention is rapidly following invention, and almost every new mechanical invention results in the displacement of large numbers of men. LABOUR DISPLACING MACHINERY

No member on the Government benches will deny that the rotolactor, when it is introduced into the dairy farming industry of the Dominion will displace large numbers of men. It will come in due time. The milking ma chine itself has displaced large num bers of men—it certainly has made milking more profitable. In the agri cultural industries there are many machines in operation, both in New Zealand and Australia, and every one of them tends to throw men out into the ranks of the unemployed. SHORTER HOURS THE REMEDY. As machinery continues to develop how will we provide work for the men and women who will be displaced: How shall we provide for the young people leaving school, who should be drafted into industry year by year? I submit that there is only one way in which this problem can be successfully roped with, and that is by shortening the hours of labour. Every time we lengthen the hours of labour we create -i} greater unemployment problem. I know that there are difficulties. We will have to revise our economic outlook very considerably in the process. LONGER HOURS. LESS WAGES. However, while we are proposing to lengthen the hours of labour by the Bill which is now before the House, we are also proposing to reduce wages at the same time. As a matter of fact, the Government is doing this at the present moment. Up at Tauranga and down at Christchurch it is insisting upon men working five days tor three days’ wages, even under the relief work scheme. This is all part of the movement to bring the standard of wages down to the lowest possible level. It is argued that if we pass this Bill, we will make it possible to employ more men. It is said that it is the Arbitration Act which is preventing men from being employed at the present time.

ARBITRATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT. Well, what shall we say about the United States of America, which have no arbitration law as we know it in this country, and yet have 9.000,000 unemployed; or Germany, with its 4.000,000 or 5,000,000 unemployed; or England, without an arbitration law, but with more than 2,000,000 unemployed. These figures demonstrate that it is not arbitration laws which determine the number of unemployed in a country. There are others, and labourdisplacing machinery is by no means the smallest of those factors. If the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Works want facts relating to the effect of labour-displacing machinery in increasing unemployment, he will find in the General Assembly’ Library a pamphlet written by myself containing a collection of facts, not by any means all the facts, which will open his eyes if he has not made a study of this subject up to the present time. NOT THE FARMERS' VIEWPOINT. The Government, in introducing this Bill, and its members, in making their speeches, are obeying the mandates of the Employers’ Federation. It is not the farmers’ viewpoint that is being expressed here. I repudiate the idea that all the farmers in New Zealand stand for the principle contained la the Bill. As a matter of fact, the farmers’ representatives in the north-, ern end of my constituency, meeting as the Directors of the Buller Valley Co-operative Dairy Company, carried resolution repudiating Mr Goodfellow’s statement almost immediately after it was made. We all know that, throughout the Dominion, there is a large number of the working farmers who recognise that what is proposed in this Bill will not only be detrimental to the wage-workers, but also inimical to the rural interests and to the country as a whole. It is not only the opinion that is expressed on the Labour benches that the Government has to face in connection with this measure. It is well known that, in farming, business, and professional ranks, there is a volume of opinion against the Government ’s proposals. I appeal to the House to join in destroying the Bill at the first opportunitv.