LABOUR AND THE STRIKE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXII, Issue 19433, 20 October 1925, Page 7

LABOUR AND THE STRIKE

MR HOLLAND REPLIES TO PRIME MINISTER SHIPPING COMBINE ATTACKED STATE SHIPS ADVOCATED [Per Press AUCKLAND, Oct. 19. Replying to the Hon. J. G. Coates at Auckland this evening, Air H. E. Holland made reference to the shipping trouble. He said the Labour Party’s programme provided for a State line of shipping which would carry our own produce to overseas markets and ply round New Zealand coasts with a guarantee of continuity of service, and with living wages and standards of decency for the men employed. All ships of the United Kingdom trading to New Zealand and Australia, were part of the world’s greatest shipping combine, the Inchcape combine, into which it was being attempted to bring the Continental steamship lines. A Glasgow paper had recently declared that the New Zealand trade was altogether in the hands of this combine, and the “Economist,” of July 18, had shown that after paying debenture interest, the profits of the combine were nearly £6,000,000, or an increase of about £796,000 over 1924. These were the shipowners who, because wages had been forced down in Germany, took their ships to that country for repairs. The combine showed no consideration whatever for tho interests of New Zealand. It was clear they wanted the trouble to eventuate and finalise in these waters. Their refusal to entertain proposals for the payment by exporters of the £1 a month in dispute was proof positive of this. They could have got their ships away without additional cost to themselves, but they preferred to lose enormously more than the amount involved in the wages dispute, and at the same time to inflict loss on New Zealand. The wages sheet of the ships constituted a shocking record, as between May 1, 1921, and May 1, 1923, wages were reduced by £3 10s per man per month, notwithstanding that tho cost of living in th< United Kingdom was as high as it waa in the war period. In September ol 1924 an increase of £1 a month wai conceded, leaving wages £4 10s a month lower than in 1921. The reduction of £1 which led to tho present trouble was claimed by tho shipowners on the plea that the 1924 increase was granted on the assumption that trad© would increase. The wages now offered stood at £2 2s lid per week for firemen, £2 0s 7d for sailors and £1 17s 3d for stewards. That was a wage on which no one, cither in New Zealand or Britain, could maintain a -imily. Mr Coates had said that u e ’of the things that did not com ~’rw Zealand. He (Mr Holland) con.ended that it was of intense concern tu every citizen of New Zealand that little children should not suffer want and hunger while their fathers were fully employed. All through Mr Coates’ references to the shipping trouble he had carefully covered up the scandal of tho low wages. If Mr Coates himself were asked to work for such an amount he would strike in double quick time. In his own elegant phraseology, ho would “hop out,” and would possibly rock tho boat in the process. Labour Party’s Influence. Mr Coates was now suggesting that tho Labour Party ought to have ordered the British seamen to hop aboard their boats and get to sea again, but if he really believed the Labour Party had tho influence wjiich he now credited them with, why had he not been courteous enough to invite himself (Mr Holland), as leader of the Labour Party, to participate in the conferences which took place between the Prime Minister and the seamen. He preferred to meet them alone. Again, why did Mr Coates refuse to give Parliament an opportunity to endeavour to bring about a settlement of the trouble. Tho Prime Minister had apparently brought no pressure whatever to bear upon the 'shipping combine. AH his efforts had been directed toward the seamen. Tho jtrouble really belonged to Britain, and pf the combine had had any consideration for the people of this country the dispute would never have been allowed to materialise here. He was willing, and always had been, to act as an intermediary. He wanted to see tho trouble settled as speedily as possible, but there was only one way to prevent similar troubles, and that was for the Dominion to have its own lino of steamers. Concerning Wage Reductions Mr Holland referred to the Prim€ Minister’s denial that any wage reduction was contemplated. He said that: Mr Coates’ repudiation of the suggestion contained in the report of the Deparment of Labour for wage reductions to provide family allowances might lead the less thoughtful to infer that a Minister was obliged to accept his secretary’s report without questioning its contents. However, it was common knowledge that before a Departmental report was presented to the House its contents were discussed by the Minister with the permanent head of the Department, and that the Minister finally approved the document. It was somewhat ludicrous to find the Government endeavouring to take shelter behind the Secretary for Labour. He (Mr Holland) had not the slightest hesitation in asserting that the proposal to reduce wages, as outlined in the report, was wholly approved by the Minister, who presented the report to the House. In any case, there was nothing new in wage reductions emanating from Government sources. The sweeping wage reductions of the past, side by side with tax reductions to wealthy, was proof positive of tho Government’s inclination. Furthermore, Mr Coates had significantly qualified his protestation that no reductions would be made. He had added “except in times of stress and depression and after the Arbitration Court and Parliament decided it should Ibo done.” This meant that it only needed a Reform majority in the House and the machinery of the Court set in motion, as in the past, to effect a reduction without making it appear that any promise had been broken. The only real guarantee against wage reductions was the defeat of the present Government.