TE AWAMUTU COURIER. Printed on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. “MONDAY, 15th JANUARY, 1940. A DISCORDANT NOTE.

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 60, Issue 4231, 15 January 1940, Page 4

TE AWAMUTU COURIER. Printed on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. “MONDAY, 15th JANUARY, 1940. A DISCORDANT NOTE.

JUST when the deputy-Prime Minister was appealing last week for a maximum of effort in order that our national pledges might be honoured, industrialists in various parts of New Zealand were employing the strike weapon for the attainment of their own ends. In Auckland the discharge of cargo essential to primary production was interrupted by a dispute on the waterfront, and at Foxton work was halted on what has appearance of being a trivial pretext. Stop-

pages of this kind are bad enough when conditions are normal, especially remembering the machinery that exists for the examination and adjustment of disputes; but in war-time they show a very poor appreciation of the need for willing and united effort. In what Mr Fraser said on his return from the conference of Dominion representatives in England there was much to arrest attention:

“ All feelings of humanity seem to have been suppressed. The word of the Nazi dictators, brittle as glass, was given only to be broken; their pledges written in shifting sand. Democracy, selfdetermination, trade unionism, political freedom, and religious freedom were suppressed and trampled underfoot.”

Mr Fraser continued that it was only too obvious to the people of New’ Zealand that this black flood of Nazi tyranny and terrorism had to be stemmed, and he did not err when he spoke of a national desire for solidarity and partnership in the struggle .with Great Britain. Yet, nevertheless, there are misguided people who would set all national pledges at defiance, and who, for their own ends, resort to methods which impede the instruments which alone can honour these pledges. Mr Fraser rightly paid tribute to the volunteers who are going to the field of battle, and, equally well, he that “ the rest of us should and must bend our backs to the many tasks on hand.” How, be it asked, is his word “must” to be construed ? That we “ should ” is undoubted, but ** must ” when uttered by any man in Mr Fraser’s position cannot be lightly spoken or regarded. Can it be a warning to these misguided strikers and to others who may be tempted to adopt similar tactics ? A Prime Minister’s word is of little consequence if “ must ” can be countered with acts of defiance. There is a large body of opinion in New’ Zealand that imagines that the Government

has yielded over-much already to a militant section of the people, and it , certainly seems high time for the authorities to decide to take a stand. The structure of our society is threatened from without, and there is enough to do, surely, without having to deal with trifling industrial struggles in our own ranks. Yet they persist and everybody is wondering what the Government intends to do about it. Of course it would be unreasonable to hope that industrial disputes will not arise; in fact, under conditions of stress they would seem to be more likely to recur. But the weapon of the strike and a defiant, militant spirit cannot be tolerated. The Government has created and keeps alive the channels for negotiation and adjustment of all petty troubles—petty, that is. when compared with the issues w’hich make this a grim struggle. If those channels are ignored, if men will seek to cast aside the constitutional method and become a law unto themselves, then, very definitely they must be brought to * book. Mr Fraser has said that they “ must,” but is he content with the saying, and shall we for ever hear threats w’hich lead nowhere ? The Government has a duty to govern, and it alone can be the Government. Apart, however, from the Government’s responsibilities, there are the obligations of the industrialists, and particularly of their leaders. The British precedent is eloquent in this regard. Only the other day Sir Walter Citrine, speaking on behalf of the British Trade Union Congress, emphasised the point that while the Labour movement had rights, it also

had responsibilities, especially when the whole nation was engaged in a life-and-death struggle with the powers of dictatorship. Then, also, there

was the resolution of the Council of the Durham Miners’ Association in England, which, by 714 votes to 21, assured the Labour Party leaders of united support in the stand taken against aggression. The British Labour movement has thoroughly grasped the significance of the threat of the powers of dictatorship to the structure which has so patiently been built up for the protection and security of the workers, and is prepared whole-heartedly to put its full weight into the struggle. A victory to the dictators and a defeat of democracy would be an overwhelming and irreparable disaster for organised Labour —that, at least, is’ acknowledged in Great Britain. It is recognised also by the great majority of workers in New Zealand, and it is evident that the people are ready and willing to “ bend their backs to the many tasks in hand.” But there remain a few militant leaders and unionists who would discredit the whole organisation of unionism and who become a discordant voice in the community. The Government should bestow its attention on such people.