ALLIANCE OF LABOUR.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 5 September 1924, Page 7

ALLIANCE OF LABOUR.

SECRET HISTORY REVEALED

MR. ATMORE’S SPEECH IN THE

HOUSE.

* (Dominion.) llie plan to establish a Soviet system of Government in New Zealand, as submitted by delegates of the Alliance of Labour to the Post and Telegraph Officers’ Association, was revealed in the House of Representatives by the member for Nelson,' Mr. H. E. Atmore, last Friday evening. ’ Referring to the paragraph in the Postmaster-General’s annual report, to the effect that there were, unfortunately, a few disloyalists in his Department, concerning which a heated debate was launched by the Labour Party during the discussion of the Estimates. Mr. Atmore said he could not see anything wrong with the reference, seeing that almost universal praise had been given by him to the 11.000 officers in the Department.

DISLOYALTY. “The term ‘disloyalty’ was not misused in the report,” said Mr. Atmore, “because there was disloyalty to a principle. This was shown two y r ears ago, when the agitation was on foot to link up the Post and Telegraph Association with the Alliance of Labour. Any member who has been in the House eight or nine years will remember that, prior to the war, the association’s executive made it a practice to interview every party in the House, whereas, during late years, the only party to which it made representations was that which was in touch with the Labour-Marxian-Socialist Party. When I raised this point with the Post and Telegraph Officers’ Executive, they pointed out that a resolution had been carried that, in future, the executive should get in touch with all parties in the House whenever it was necessary to consult members. However sincere the Labour Party might be in its endeavours to better the condition of postal employees, it could not carry a proposal in the House because it was not strong enough. No State service could he run with two separate heads, for no man or body could serve two masters.

DOCTRINE OF THE ALLIANCE. “Everybody knew that the Alliance of Labour was distinctly revolutionary, and was prepared to proceed by unconstitutional means,” continued Mr. Atmore. The people of the Dominion had the right to say what should be done in their own services. Every member, except those on the Labour benches, was against the proposal that the P. and T. Association should link up with the Alliance of Labour.

Mr. Atmore quoted from a report of a discussion that took place between the executive of the Alliance of Labour and the executive of the P. and T. for the purpose, he said, of showing some of the sentiments that were voiced at the meeting. The report is as follows—“Mr, Smith (P. and T.) said the word strike had been mentioned. He asked what should be the position if their association was affiliated and the transport workers went out on strike, and they (the P. and T. Service) remained loyal and _ had to handle through the post certain stuff that went through. “In reply, the chairman stated that Mr Mack (secretary of the Alliance- of Labour) instanced that if we were out on strike the other bodies would not necessarily be out in sympathy, hut would give support. For instance, say. a mail went out, for Auckland or for Ghlristchurcb, the rail way men would decline to handle the mails, .and similarly the seamen would say the same. They help to paralyse the position. “Mr. Smith: That partly contradicts the statement that you would not have to go out on strike.

“Mr. Mackay (P. and’T.) said we would not ‘scab.’ The alliance would not ask us to go out, hut would ask for our support. If we decided not to give support I should say we would lie ‘scabbing’ if we handled the things. The day may arrive when we would like to know that the railwaymen would not scab on us. His opinion of strikes was that they were a last resort. A strike very seldom did any good, and the step should only be taken when there were no other means available. If they had an exceptionally good case they were not going to' be turned down.”

“THE PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW.” If, said Mr. Atmore, he could show that an attempt was being made by the executive of the P. and T. Association to link up with an organisation, the Alliance of Labour, that talked quite cheerfully about helping to paralyse the country, it was right that the country should know exactly what was going on. He quoted further: “Mr. Combs (secretary of the P. and T. Association): As to the point raised by Mr. Duncan, I must remind him that I prefaced my remarks by saying that you have no right morally to join the -alliance unless you are prepared to give to it the strength you would expect from it should the emergency be yours. I followed that up by saying that the majority of the delegates present did not understand what the Alliance of Labour stood for.”

Mr. Atmore, continuing, said the Labour member for Christchurch South had taken objection to his reference to the Alliance of Labour. Surely the hon. gentleman must know what the Minister was referring to when he made the remark in his report to which such strong objection has been taken by the Labour-Socialist Party. The Minister’s words were: “Unfortunately, the service numbered among its' officers a few who might be termed disloyalists. . . . These few, with the ready assistance of persons outside the service, were only too eager to oppose,” etc. Surely there was no offence in mentioning the name of the Alliance of Labour organisation. That was the organisation that all the trouble was over, and he was quite justified in referring to the aims of that organisation. They were diametrically opposed to the constitutional method of effecting an improvement in the condition of the men. If further evidence were wanted, he had another extract from the report of the interview: “INVOLVED. WILLY-NILLY.” Mr. Roberts (president of the Alliance of Labour): I can tell you that anyone who has been through a strike will not talk glibly about it. I would never enter lightly into a strike. The strike is a great weapon, but a most dangerous one, and I would not recommend the use of it except as the last ditch and the last straw. The strike is a good weapon if properly used, but it can be abused. There is a common line that must be drawn between the working men and the men who employ them. The railwaymen have a dispute on now, but it has never been referred to us yet, If it is sent on to us it will be considered by the Transport Workers’ Department and then by the council. I want to make this point very clear. You may think if we go out on strike you may run free. You are involved willy-nilly whether .you like it or not. Tf you are involved do you think we will turn a deaf ear to

what you will say? As far as this organisation is concerned, 1 see no possibility of a strike unless by the railwaymen or some other organisation of the kind.”

“Mr. Roberts, speaking later on the subject of an Industrial Parliament, said: If every industry is to he efficiently managed, it must be managed by men who understand it. If the P. and T. Department i s to be efficiently managed the men must have a sav. Messrs Massey and Coates kqow possibly as much ■ about your department as* the fai mers do. and that is not very much. Possibly the licking of a tw.openiiy stamp is their limit. The day i§ coming in New Zealand when, instead of having a Government elected according to geographical boundaries, we will have one elected by the different industries. Your industry will have its representative there. He will be put there by you, and you will have the right to put him out as soon as he treats you too hard. The time has arrived now when we should be audacious in every department. Instead of the regulations being placed there before you your, should be there to draft them." “In reply to a question bv Mr. R. H. Brown. Mr. Roberts said the Alliance of Labour included freezing workers, miners, railwaymen, waterside workers, drivers, etc. ’ It embraced just on 40,000 workers.

“Mr. Eddy (P. and T.): How amnv miners are there not belonging to the Federation of Labour ?

t Robei ’ ts ' The Federation of Labour went out of existence in 1915, and this organisation took its place. “Mr Mack: As to the point raised by Mr. Cummins, what would be the sense of calling the P. and T. men out if the railwaymen had a dispute, unless there was going to be anything gained by it ? But you could not have a dispute in the P. and T. service long before it would affect every other branch of the Alliance. If the Ministers only knew what might happen they would be only too glad to consult with you. Take the present position regarding the railway regulations. These regulations have been referred to us before they are gazetted, and we are not going to be bustled over them; and if they start to bring down their regulations without waiting, foy us there will be the biggest crash they ever, got, and they won’t like it. Everything points to this, and the sooner you together the better. I believe that either the Labour movement is goin<r to take control of things, or there is gomg to be a big crash. And I believe that what is going to happen is that the. Labour movement is going to take charge.

Mr. Roberts: When we have an industrial parliament you will have your committees of actual workers, who will bring down a policy for Parliament and discuss it with the political representatives From/these other departments.” Mr. Atmore said, he was fully iustig reference to the report, lhe Minister had discriminated between the great hulk of the 11,000 employees of the Postal and Telegraph Department who were loyal to principle and ” > + ™-m. eo^! e ’ and be ew w ho were not. lhe Minister would meet with the . support of the general public in having made that discrimination The Labour member for Christchurch East had told the House that force was justihable evidently believing in the methods of the Alliance of Labour An attempt .was being made to link up with an organisation whose objective was avowedly a revolutionary one ni,m£A S V d rr ty make the report public to the House and the people ” servA Ud + ed Mr ‘ f tmore - ‘‘No man can sene two masters, and, so long as there is a. constitutional form of Government in New Zealand, it is the clear duty of those public servants appointed b.y Parliament to serve the people and the State loyally When one hears the extremists coolly ta£ mg about paralysing industry and the commercial activity of the counsevereTv 6 C Q nD f COndenm them too severely. Such an attempt only needs exposure before the public of New Zealand to receive general conone^mne 11 ’ f Th f e is 110 need.to break one pane of glass or shed one drop eeoimmt ing - abont the necessary tZTirl l d SOClal ref °nns in any country. Anyone possessing an orthat ai no d t gree i ° f intell *g enc e knows tliat no appeal can succeed that is fee 6 " 1 The th T h Ub 01 »°. ther Physical ioice. lhe Labour Prime Minister fall ? • h ? d Said that the fess talk about violence the more the peoBritiTh U 1 r ? PeCt the Labou r Party. Rutish people, since their constitii fon in Magna Charta, have always acted cionstututjiomilly, and have, al? ways been opposed to the violent meI nlff., ad '’ d f ted tl,e Alliance of cia!iats.” and Miamentary Sot^‘of)S orc ,ep *'. t 0 allegetion of Labour, members that the docn ment quoted from was “secret and confidential.” The elm,-Jr , Mm he said. Smely ‘ H ge , vas a "'Sd to believe that his accusers were members of the Labour Party who thev cHd 1 i°! ei ' again ’ stated that tney did not believe m “secret trei S ** ** VS; i i, x? 11 carc * 0,1 ” fo l V nnh! U i d - they find fault with him sections^^ lsb f m g, som T etbi «g which two IZesZn „f T^ s s , re re h t ad d„° bta ' ned this evidence Showed that \T” ' vl,id ' Of the Ini the trade and industry ur tile country werp in interfered with. be seriously The leader of the Labour Party said tha? r mb A f S ° f tb *t"partv said that Mr. Atmore had ouoterl im^staSs 6 ?! 61111^ 1 reporfc - The »ominn states they have' seen the renort It is not marked ‘confidential ’ It j s a \ y E ntte ? d ° cument headed. ‘The A hance of Labour: What it is and What it Aims at’.” ’