THE COAL DISPUTE

Southland Times, Issue 18619, 18 August 1919, Page 5

THE COAL DISPUTE

DEPUTATION TO MINISTERS. LABOUR ALLIANCE STATES ITS CASE. CONSIDERED REPLY BY CABINET SOUGHT. (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, August 16. A large deputation from the Labour Alliance waited upon the Prime Minister and members of the Cabinet to-day to discuss matters in connection with the coalminers’ dispute. Among the different sections of workers represented were the railwaymen, waterside workers, drivers, tramwaymen, seamen and miners. The speakers pointed out that as the dispute was having an effect upon all trades, the workers as a whole felt justified in taking a hand in the matter. Apart, however, from any selfish aim, the deputations, the speakers said, had the welfare of the people as a whole at heart. With the Prime Minister were Sir Joseph Ward, Sir James Allen and the Hons. W. D. S. Mac Donald, A. M. Myers, D. H. Guthrie, W. H. Henries, G. W. Russell, J. A. Hanan, T. M., Wilford and Dr Pomare. Mr R. Hampton said that the deputation represented different classes of workers. So far as the organisations outside the miners were concerned, they had no apology to make for bringing them in in connection with the dispute between the coal-owners and coal-miners. They recognised that the subject should be looked at from a national point of view. They were there to put before the Ministers reasons why e miners could not accept the offer mane by the owners, for the joint consideration of Cabinet and that being so, they were anxious to avoid any possibility of argument. They did not expect that they would get any definite reply. That would not be reasonable. All they asked was that what they said should be fully considered in all its bearings and be treated as a matter of utmost urgency. Turning to the question of the employers’ offer the speaker said that the offer made did not cover the industry on a national basis. There was a clause in the agreement offered by the employers which eliminated certain mines from its effect. The effect of the proposed agreement was that it affected nine mines and included eight hundred employees or forty per cent, of the total number of men employed. They believed that although there might be varying conditions in the mines, that was not necessarily a stumbling block in bringing about a national agreement. There was a suspicion in the minds of the miners that the employers’ proposals to eliminate those mines from the agreement was to dislocate the national organisation. On the question of the wages submitted by the employers he asked if the employees were entitled to offer and were the men offered wages equal to the pre-war conditions And if not, why not? Was it too much for any body of workers to expect that they should not be in a worse position than they were in prior to the war? The war was over and what they wanted to know was whether at least they should not be placed in as good a position as before the war. He was not sure they had not been promised by the statesmen something more than that. Referring to the increase in the wages given to the miners the speaker said that he found it difficult to get figures fully illustrating the rise in the cost of living from official sources. He believed that 55 per cent, was a moderate estimate of the increased cost of living, but the average man believed that that estimate was too low. The Board of Trade stated that the increase was in the vicinity of 52 per cent. The real question, however, was; Was the increase in wages offered equal to the increase in the cost of living. Mr Hampton concluded by strongly advocating the nationalisation of the mines on the lines of the railways and telegraphs. Mr James Roberts, who took a prominent part in the recent conference, gave a resume of what took place in the various discussions between the owners and miners. Dealing with the improved conditions asked for, he said that most of them were already in operation in the State mines. He referred briefly to the terms of the agreement proposed by the owners, who, he said, wished the men to agree not to make any further demand during the currency of the agreement. That meant that the legislation passed last session to enable industrial agreements to be varied to meet changes in the cost of living was to be circumvented and surely the Government was not in favour of that. He criticised the owners’ demand that one clause of the agreement should provide that the miners should inform the Australian miners that conditions in the mines were now satisfactory. That clause he said, would merely defeat the owners’ object as the Australian miners would know that it had been forced upon the local men. "The only way in which the coal supply of New Zealand can be increased,” he continued, “is to. make the conditions such that they will attract labour to the mines.” In conclusion Mr Roberts urged Cabinet to consider the desirability of nationalising the coal-mines, contending that the existing State mines had been handled more effectively, as far as the public was concerned, than the private mines. ” The nationidisation of the industry would cheapen the cost to the public. Mr Massey, in reply, said that Mr Roberts had emphasised the statement that the conditions in the privately-owned mines were not as satisfactory as in the Stateowned mines. The Government would be pleased to hear that the conditions in the State mines were satisfactory and the Government would be pleased to be able to ensure that the conditions of the private mines were brought Up to that standard. The question of housing was in view, but the Government had other things to consider, and it might be a little time before the necessary alterations were made. So far as the mining industry was concerned, everyone would recognise the exceedingly serious position the country had got into. They had a country, which, as fur as he knew, was able to supply itself with coal for a very long time to come, for hundreds and thousands of years.— (Hear, hear.) “But, in spite of that fact, here we are to-day with our railway services disorganised and cut down by more than half and the whole population of the country suffering serious inconvenience, many suffering loss of employment and many industries practically ceased, because we cannot keep the railways running. It may be said that in the past we have been dependent on imported coal, but I hope to see the day when we will not have to go outside New Zealand for coal. How* that is going to bo brought about,' I am not able to say. The speakers have intimated that the conditions are such that a sufficient number of men do not sec their way to take up the business of coal-mining as u living. Perhaps the coal-miners would put forward a different reason, but the business of all of us is to find the solution of the problem. The position reminds me of the old saying about ‘a house divided against itself,’ and a country divided against itself cannot prosper. As long as we find the country split up into sections quarrelling with one another, so long shall we find national difficulty.” Mr Massey was about to go into the details in regard to the cost of living when Mr Hampton interrupted him to say that, while respecting the Prime Minister’s opinions, what the deputation desired was that Cabinet should consider the matters brought before it and then at a later date make a considered statement.

The Prime Minister: What you want to do is to put forward one side? Mr Hampton replied that that was not the case. Having put their case, the deputation desired Cabinet to consider it. Then if Cabinet desired, thp deputation was quite prepared to meet the Ministers again and hear what they had to say. If Cabinet could then show that the speakers’ statements were wrong, he was sure the deputation were men enough to admit that they were "blown out.” The deputation could not take the Prime Minister's own opinions expressed to-day as the considered decisions of Cabinet. Mr Massey: “I do not think it is a fair position to take up.” Continuing, he said that Cabinet wanted to do the straight thing and get at the coal question from the point of view of the public as a whole. The interjectors had referred to the coat of

living and he claimed the right to reply. The Government had been trying all the time to keep down the cost of living, but what the deputation had asked for was going to raise the cost of living to every person in the community. Mr Hampton went on again to emphasise the point that it was impossible for a definite reply to be made to the deputation until Cabinet had gone fully into the matters mentioned by the speakers. Mr Massey said that the deputation would, of course, get an official reply from Cabinet later, but he wanted to point out s;lae of the Government difficulties. One of the greatest was the cost of living and he feared that the miners’ proposals would simply continue the vicious circle the country had been travelling in. In regard to nationalisation he said that he had paid close attention to and was keeping in touch with what was being done at Home. He did not agree with the comparison drawn by Mr Hampton between the railways and the coal-mines. He would be the last to submit to any proposal that the railways should be handed to private companies because that would create a dangerous monopoly. With the coal-mines, however, there were so many of them that there was no possibility of such a monopoly being obtained. Some further interjections were made to which Mr Massey replied that the Government would give full justice to every, section of the community making out a good case in support of its requests, but the Government’s first interests must be the good of the country. He added that he understood that the deputation’s request was that the Government should support the miners in their demands to the coal companies throughout the country for improved conditions. Mr Hampton: That is not altogether the position. We are here not to lay down any hard and fast conditions as to what will settle the dispute. Our sole object is to point out certain matters which are the stumbling blocks to a settlement and to try to devise some means of getting over* them. We suggest that if a pronouncement was made by Cabinet to the effect that the coal-mines wall be nationalised in twelve months, and if some arrangement could be made <or dealing with the men in the meanwhile, matters would be facilitated. The objection of the owners to deal with the matter nationally is a stumbling block and their offers do not meet the position. We think the situation demands the fullest con sideration of the Government and after that has been given we ask you for an official reply. Having thanked the Ministers for receiving them, the deputation withdrew.