WAIKATO STRIKE

Dominion, Volume 36, Issue 17, 15 October 1942, Page 6

WAIKATO STRIKE

Handling Criticized By Mr. Holland

RESPECT FOR THE LAW Resignation Of Ministers

Methods adopted by the Government in dealing with the Waikato mining strike were criticized by the ■Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Holland, in moving a motion of noconfidence in the Government in .the House of Representatives last night. The motion was as follows: "Having regard to the handling of certain questions and the effect on the country’s war effort, this House has no confidence in the Government. Notice'of his motion had been given by Mr. Holland when the House met in the afternoon. Mr. Holland said he was conscious of the responsibility involved in moving such a motion. His purpose was to provide members of the House with an unlimited opportunity to discuss important, events that had liappeneu in New Zealand during the past few weeks. The country was entitled to the fullest information as to the circumstances which had led up to the resignation of four National Laity Ministers from the War Administration. , , , Parliament was elected to see tnai even-handed justice was dispensed to all members of the community, said Mr. Holland. If the Government tailed to observe impartiality in its administration then it deserved to lose the confidence of the House and tlie country. In times of war many of the rights normally enjoyed by the people were forgone, but in peace or war the'System of. justice remained supreme. History Of Strike.

Dealing with the history .of the Waikato strike, Mr. Holland recalled that in 1939 the Government bad provided drastic conditions for the control of workers and employers. Under the Strike and lockout Regulations the Government took a serious view or anything that held up the war ellorl. He believed that the great majority of people had an abiding respect for the law of the land. In the Waikato strike he was faced with a proposal that contained rank injustice. “The Government conceded to the miners more than what they struck for’’ said Mr. Holland. “In my opinion’ 13,000 dairy-farmers, have been iob’bed of their mines, for two of the largest mines are owned by the New Zealand Co-operative Dairy Company. Ltd. These dairy-farmers have a right to a say in the management oi their own affairs, and they have had this right taken from them because 1300 miners broke, the law. The responsibility for the government of this country has passed from the elected representatives of Ute peoplp to men guilty of In-caking the law and holding up the. war effort.” The payment of fees from the war Expenses Account to members of the Board of Control to be appointed was criticized by Mr. Holland. That, be said, was a misuse of war funds. Blow At British Justice.

' “I was asked to do things that strike a blow at British justice and to agree with things that make the law of this country a mockery,” said Mr. Holland. “I was asked to. bow to what Jias been described by .Ministers on the other side of the House as an irresponsible minority, industrial wreckers,' enemies of the State and those who played the Japanese game. Those who asked that of me asked the impossible. I took the only course possible if I were to retain my selfrespect. I was not prepared to subordinate principle' for expediency. ’ _ The strike was an illegal strike, said Mr Holland. He added that on' September 15 War Cabinet granted authority to prosecute the met) on strike and he was assured that this tune there would be no turning back ami that the summonses would not be withdrawn. Six days later at a meeting of the War Cabinet, the War Admin st ration and the domestic Cabinet, the Prime Minister proposed that the sentences Ito suspended and the miners bound over. These men were not liound over; they received a Kings pardon on condition they did not take part in any further strikes. Control of Mines. Recounting the State control pro-, posals laid before the War Cabinet, Mr. Holland said he objected to tlic War Expenses Account being called on to bear the costs of administering the mines mid making up any deficiency in the mining operations. "What ’“AV 1 ?', tago is there to be gained by btau control when the same miners are to work the same mines and the cwueio are to receive the same profits.' he asked. “The only answer is Hint by the set-up of this Government party it is controlled by. the unions themselves and if the miners are able to get away with State control on this issue then there will be control of the freezing, transport and other industries.”_ _ Mr. Holland said Hie Prime Minister had done him an injustice when lie had said that no alternatives had been advanced to the -action of the Government. “I did put forward alternatives,” he said. "I suggested that coalmining be declared a war industiy . that the same conditions apply to the miners as to the soldiers in camps. I urged that strong action lie taken and that the ringleaders of Hie strike be immediately arrested ami incarcerated. I believe that had that been done the strike would'have been settled in 2-1 hours. 1 favoured giving Hie miners -IS hours to get back to work or putting them into caii|P- Properly handled with firmness and resolution by Hie imprisonment of Hie wreckers ami ringleaders the strike could have been broken.”

Mr. Holland said he was opposed to the capitulation which was a policy of tippea semen t, a policy which was an enemy to the Empire and the world. "There has been too much expediency and too little adherence to principles,” he said. “I left the Cabinet meeting because it was a matter of honour and conscience. I would sooner retire from public life than give up those principles.”

POWERS OF CENSOR Opposition Criticism Of System SUPPRESSION OF NEWS The censorship system was attacked by the I<eader of the Opposition, Mr. Holland, when speaking to his noconfidence motion in the House. He said that after assuming the.duties of Minister in Charge of War Expenditure he realized the magnitude of the cost of the war for a small country like New Zealand. It was safe to say that the public had no idea of what was going on as estimates were not discussed in the House like ordinary departmental estimates. Mr. Holland said he consulted the Prime Minister and suggested the appointment of a committee of four members, two from the House and

two outsiders, to study possible economies in war expenditure, lie also suggested a second committee to investigate prospective expenditure. That, method he thought would give (lie public confidence and ensure that such monies as subsidies, the cost of munitions and other matters were expended wisely. The Army and Treasury authorities had welcomed Hie proposals’. “After seeing the Prime Minister, who had assented to the suggestions, I handed my statement to the Press, and was inter informed Hint the censor had prohibited the publication of the names of the committee and Hie duties for which they were appointed.” said Mr. Holland. "The censor had overruled Hie Prime Minister. 1 am not attacking the individual. but the system which puls a censor over the heads of the Ministers and vetoes things which Hie publie should be told. I waiit to raise my voice in protest against this misuse of Hie censorship, which is concerned chiefly with protecting the Government from criticism.”

Referring to the recent statement on Hie censorship by Hie Newspaper Proprietors' Association, Mr. Holland said it only gave-a Imre hint of Hie suppression of nows being practised in this country. The people were being kept in ignorance and rumourmongering was the result. “When I was invited to join Hie War Administration.” said Mr. Holland, “I suggested that a Mihis’try of Information lie set up as I considered our propaganda and news service were probably the poorest in Hie world. 'l’liis had not been acted upon. We are treating the* people like children, people who are strong enough to stand up and receive unpleasant facts without flinching." Prime Minister Replies. The Prime Minister, in the course of his reply to the. leader of the Opposition, said that Mr. Holland had alleged that Hie action taken by the censor in withholding publication of Mr. statement on war finance had been done with Hie object of defending Hie Government. The War Cabinet from the beginning had been responsible for Hie administration of Hie war finances. Therefore there was no question .of defending the Government The War Cabinet had laid it down that all statements muet be sjllbmitted to the censor. The censor in a case like that would not interfere and had never interfered. He had always given the Prime Minister an op]x>rtunity of looking at Ministers’ statements whatever they were. Mr. Fraser said that he himself never made a statement on any aspect of the war issue without submitting it to the censor.

Other members of Hie War Cabinet, not all of them on' the Government Hide of the House, lin'd considered Mr! Holland’s - statement unfair not to the Government but to the members of the War Cabinet. One condition of comradeship in a cuminou enterprise was loyalty to each other. Mr. Holland: The Acting-Prime Minister approved of it.

The Prime Minister: The ActingPrime Minister told me that he did not approve of the statement, and that he actually offered to rearrange part of it so that it could lie published, Mr. Sullivan: Correct.

Continuing, Hie Prime Minister said that another member of the War Cabinpt had offered to trim the statement into a form which left no reflection on Mr. Holland’s colleagues. Why did Mr. Holland have a . complaint? Did he want to stab the Government Hint he was co-operating witlt iu the back? The censor had done what lie usually did. The attention of the Acting-Prime Minister had been called to the statement by the censor so that it could be’issued in'a'form representing the War Cabinet as. a whole. Mr. Holland was suffering from a misconception of what his duty was. Why? Was it because he looked upon himself not as a representative of the people in the War Cabinet but'as a representative of certain class interests? The honourable nieniber was under the impression that he was there to look after certain interests. Was there a basis for common action' in such an attitude? Regulation of News. “Only the editors of the newspapers of this country know the extent" to which the news is prohibited and regulated by the censor,” said Mr. Doidge (Opposition, Tauranga). "How „can any case lie judged fairly if the Press is gagged?” Mr. Doidge said that a rigid censorship bad been imposed during tlie lluiiHy strike. The editor of a provincial paper had showed.him an instruction from the censor illustrating just what the censorship was doing to Hie country. Mr. Doidge said that no newspaper in New Zealand would be permitted to do what Ixird Northcliffe did in the last war through Hie. "Daily Mail” in revealing shortcomings in tile war effort and bringing inefficiency, waste and bungling to public notice. There, were discontent, anxiety and frustration throughout New Zealand, and one cause of it was the degree to which news was withheld from the public. Tlie people of New Zealand were treated like children. Describing Hie Prime Minister’s amendment as a clever ruse to cloud the issue, Mr. Doidge contended Hint Hie whole question was one of who was to govern Hie country. If tlie Prime Minister was in doubt let him go to Hie country for a decision. The whole showing in Hie handling of the strike went to prove that crime paid in New Zealand. The men who broke the law got. more than they broke tile law to get. When that happened "liuis” could he written across the Constiiution The Government should have .jailed only Hie ringleaders and Hie strike would have been quickly broken. The Prime Minister had staved off Hie evil day, but it would eome sooner or later.