Before Sydney Council.

Maoriland Worker, Volume 2, Issue 73, 2 August 1912, Page 6

Before Sydney Council.

THE WAIHI AND REEFTON STRIKES.

At the meeting of the Labor Council of New South Wales on July 4, P. H. Hickey, delegate from the Labor Fedoration of New Zealand, appealed to the Council and affiliated unions for assistance lor tho Waihi and Ilcefton miners on strike, and explained the causes which had produced the existing position in t-lie Dominion. Tho matter was referred to the executive for consideration and report.

At last Thursday's (July 11) meeting of the Council the executive reported that it had considered tho appeal and obtained further information from 51 r. Hk-kcy. It had also received a reply from the Wellington Labor Council, which stated that that body had refused to endorse an appeal made to it by the Mew Zealand Fed*'ration of Labor on behalf of Hhc Waihi and Hoefton men. It had taken this course because it believed that the American system of industrial warfare was not suitable in New Zealand, where a worker's vote was equally as- valuable as that of any mining director. Iγ view of this reply the executive deferred making any final recommendation until it had received an answer to a letter sent to the Auckland Labor Council. .When the adoption of the executive report was proposed, Mr. J. A. C'rnigie (Painters) deprecated the procedure of the executive. If that body decided to be guided by the opinion of Labor Councils in New Zealand, it should consult not only those of Wellington and Auckland, but also those of Canterbury and Olago. From several years' personal experience in New Zealand, ho knew that strong feeling existed between the United Labor Party and the Federation of Labor. He deprecated the delay entailed by tho inquiries in New Zealand that tho executive was making. Such delay might mean tho defeat of tho men on strike. When fellow-workers were engaged in an industrial dispute they should be promptly supported and that whether they were right or wrong. He would say from eight years' experience in New Zealand that tho miners of that country had never once turned down an appeal coming to them from Australia. Mr. O'Brien (Furniture Trades) moved as an amendment of the executive's decision that, instead of waiting for a reply from Auckland, an appeal to affiliated unions should be issued by tho Council at once. The Council knew practically nothing of the relations of Labor bodies in Now Zealand, but did know that miners there were on strike and in sorb need of help. It would be lacking in its sense of duty if the appeal were turned down. He believed the miners had a sound grievance. Mr. Grevillo (Rocltcnoppcrs) seconded the amendment. Ho would say regarding the rights and wrongs of thd position that when workmen were seeking improved pay and conditions they were never wrong. Whatever Council might) decide on, he would go to hie union and ask aid for the New Zealand men. Mr. Guihen. who had moved the adoption of the executive's report, replied to the remarks that had been niado. It was not a question of rights or wrongs of the strike, but a question of the correct method of procedure of the Council. The statement that workers could never bo wrong wn.s, however, one that Council must repudiate. Organised unionism meant that there must bo discipline. The Wellington reply had placed the position in a reasonable light. The matter was really one of the principle of tho general strike against that of arbitration. The method of the general strike had everywhere proven] a failure. The issue to bo determined was whether Council was to 'endorse the method of tho general strike. Council was asked, in effect, to endorse and support action that would bo prejudicial to the intoresta of organised Labor everywhere.

At the request of a delegate, and on the desire of vho Council, the. letter from the Wellington Labor Council was road. This was n iujjlv quost for information ihat had bTcii sent from Sydney, and was couched only in general tonus. Jt gave no very detailed reasons why the Wellington Council refused to endorse the appeal on behalf of the miners, and was, ia the main, merely an afliiination of that Council's decision on the matter.

On being put to the vote, Mr. O'Uricn's amendment was lost,' and the executive's report was adopted as it stood."—Sydney "AVorkor."