Page:EB1922 - Volume 31.djvu/1182

1128

side was the grouping in 1919 of some of the more militant unions in the National Industrial Alliance of Labour, which has super- seded the Federation of Labour. A check was administered to the amalgamation of industrial unions in 1918 by an important decision of the full court that only those unions can amalgamate whose members are engaged in the same industry. The direct march towards the ideal of " one big union " is thus barred, but the way left clear for organization on a national basis, and this organization is proceeding. The aim of the National Alliance of Labour, which was approved by a representative conference in 1920, is to have all the industries nationally organized, and to federate these national organizations. The Alliance is to be a " Federation of National Federations." With the federations of the freezing workers, waterside workers, seamen, drivers, tramwaymen, miners and railwaymen linked up, and the number still growing, the Alliance of Labour claims to be already the most powerful Labour organization ever established in the Dominion. It is noteworthy that the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, upon whose loyalty the Govern- ment was able to rely in the great strike of 1913 and in other troubles, has now thrown in its lot with the direct actionists. Industrially the Labour party thus promises to be better organ- ized for war than ever before, and it is in a warlike mood. The litigious spirit fostered by the machinery of compulsory arbitra- tion, which has made New Zealand singularly barren of such experiments in mutual goodwill and understanding between capital and labour as the Whitley Councils, is now yielding to a more aggressive policy on the part of the workers which will make peaceful cooperation still more difficult.

Politically also the Labour party has made a great advance. The violence of its anti-patriotic and anti-military propaganda was restrained during the war by the stringency of the war regulations against seditious language and language calculated to interfere with recruiting; but war-weariness, the cost of living, and all the shortcomings, real and imaginary, of the National Government gave the party towards the close of the war a great opportunity as the most convenient vehicle for popular discon- tent. In 1918 three of the revolutionary leaders who had been convicted of offences in relation to the great strike or against the war regulations were successful at by-elections, 1 and two of the seats were captured from the Government. The inert- ness of a Government which regarded its position as secure was largely responsible for this result, but the success of a party whose attitude to the war had been described by one of its own leaders as that of " dignified neutrality " was a strange paradox in the last year of the war. Its choice of candidates indicated the complete political ascendency of the revolutionary element in the party. At the general election of 1919 the prospects of Labour were improved by the disruption of the Liberal-Reform Coalition, and it had candidates in 50 of the 76 non-Maori con- stituencies, the contest in 34 cases being triangular.

As one of its leaders said, the Labour party had thus " the chance of its life," but the fact that outsiders could see this as clearly as its own members was probably the turning-point of the election. Hatred of the party's war record, distrust of its leaders, and the fear that it might at least be strong enough to secure the balance of power set large numbers of electors seeking the most effective method of voting against Labour. By their prejudice no less than by their principles the Reform party were more widely separated from Labour than the Liberals, and Mr. Massey's declarations against cooperating with Labour were rather more emphatic than the Liberal leader's. Disapproval of the way in which the Liberals had broken up the Coalition, and admiration of the manner in which Mr. Massey faced the crisis thus forced upon him, must also have helped the swing of the pendulum in the direction of the Government. The polling took place on Dec. 17 1919 and resulted as follows: Government (Reform) 47; Opposition (Liberals) 20; Labour 8; Independent

1 The vacancy in one of these constituencies was caused by the forfeiture of a Labour M.P.'s seat through his absence from Parlia- ment owing to his conviction and imprisonment for disobeying the call to military service.

Labour 2; Independent 3. The thoroughness of the Reform party's victory, which excited general surprise, was in part due to the chances of an unscientific electoral system. The second ballot had been tried at the elections of 1908 and 1911, but the collective bargaining for votes which it induced was the main cause of its repeal in 1912. The hope that the Massey Govern- ment, which repealed it, would provide some better remedy for the anomalies produced by three-cornered fights in single- member districts was disappointed. The official Opposition estimate of the voting in the European constituencies, after amending it by transferring from the Liberals the votes cast for the three Independent Labour or Liberal-Labour candidates to the Independents, is as follows: Government (Reform), 206,461; Opposition, 182,426; Labour, 127,024; Independent Labour, 14,411; Independents, 12,345. On a proportionate basis the Government would have had approximately 30 seats, the Opposition 26 and Labour 18, instead of 44, 22 and 8 respectively, with 2 to apportion among the Independents. These calculations relate to the European constituencies only. The four Maori electorates gave three supporters to the Gov- ernment and one to the Opposition. Next to Mr. Massey's personal triumph and the rise of the Labour vote, the defeat of Sir Joseph Ward, the Liberal leader, in a constituency which had stood by him in the 32 years of his political career, was the outstanding feature, and none was more widely regretted.

Between the general election and the meeting of Parliament in June 1920 Labour troubles and the Prince of Wales's visit kept the Government fully occupied. Discontent had been rife in the coal-mines throughout the war, and in April 1917 Sir James Allen had been compelled to settle a threatened strike by concessions for which the need for maintaining the Dominion's military efforts undiminished during the acutest crisis of the war was held to be the only sufficient plea. But the truce did not last long and the rejection by the mineowners of the men's demands led in Aug. 1919 to the adoption of a " go-slow " policy in all the mines. The output, which before the war had averaged some 2,250,000 tons per annum, was reduced by about one-third. The supplies for both household and manufacturing purposes were very short; public services, such as railways, tram- ways, and gasworks, were embarrassed and curtailed; and a system of rationing was established for the first time. In Feb. 1920 Mr. Massey convened a meeting of the parties anc 1 succeeded in effecting a settlement. The principal demand of the men, which was for the replacement of the contract system by one of fixed wages, was rejected, but a minimum payment of I2S. per shift averaged over each fortnightly period was con- ceded and also a general increase of wages.

Another long-standing trouble was handled in a way that brought the Government less credit. The railway workers, to whom the country was especially indebted for industrious and loyal service during the war, had not been rewarded by the advantages which other sections of labour had obtained by militant tactics. After a long delay their grievances were referred to a commission presided over by Mr. Justice Stringer, which in March 1920 recommended a bonus of 6s. a week, representing an advance of 44% to cover a 42% rise in the cost of living. The railway men, who were able to quote the state- ment of the Premier himself that the cost of living had increased 62 %, described the report as an insult and pressed their demand with redoubled vigour. As the Government still temporized, the Engineers', Firemen, and Cleaners' Association struck and were followed by the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants. After it had lasted three days (April 29-May i) the strike was settled on the basis of the immediate resumption of work and the reference of the claims to arbitration, which resulted, as was inevitable, in substantial concessions to the men.

Public opinion censured the Railway Department for the procrastination which had inflamed genuine grievances and the men for spoiling a good case by bad tactics. The sting of the performance was that it was timed for the close of the first week of the Prince of Wales's. visit and threatened it with disaster. But the Prince himself treated the incident with his usual tact,