Реферат: Stanley Bruce's great industrial relation blunder
Bruce's chief proposition was that the constitution should be
altered in such a way as to hand over all power dealing with the regulation of
the terms and conditions of employment, and the rights and duties of employers and
employees in all industrial matters to authorities to be established by the Commonwealth.
That meant giving absolute power to the Commonwealth Arbitration Court.
There was a second clause, intended as a sop to the Federal Labor
Party, to grant control over trusts and combinations operating "in restraint
of trade". Charlton and his party didn't realise that the clause could be used
against trade unions as well as against powerful trusts. Then as a separate question
there was a proposal to give the Commonwealth power "to protect the interests
of the public in case of actual or probable interruption of an essential service".
The federal caucus, after many comings and goings between the
two parties, finally agreed to support Bruce in an appeal to the people. In Sydney,
I immediately denounced it as an attempt to deprive the people of the 44-hour week.
I pointed out that the states would jettison all rights to enact factory laws.
Conciliation and arbitration courts would no longer be state affairs. Workers'
compensation, early closing, motherhood endowment, would be solely federal matters.
The Commonwealth could kill the state laws. "The whole social and industrial
life of the Australian people will be at the mercy of three legal gentlemen, who
will be superior to all laws, federal or dtate. Mr Bruce's proposals are fraught
with tremendous danger to the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth,"
I told the Labor Party. The ALP executive backed my stand.
In Melbourne, Bruce and Charlton collaborated to the limit.
The only criticism came from within the government parties. A West Australian member
of the Country Party, Mr Gregory, called it an unholy alliance. WA Watt, a former
treasurer and deputy prime minister, said that it would split all parties. He had
grave doubts. He described the rival groups as two well-bred dogs watching the
bone held in the Prime Minister's hand. He was suspicious of giving judges too
much power. "Even if they were angels from Heaven, I should hesitate to repose
in these three judges of the Arbitration Court the enormous powers contained in
this measure," said Watt.
Hughes was also against giving the power to the judges. He said
it should remain with Parliament. That was the original proposal of 1911. But it
didn't satisfy Bruce. He wanted Lukin, Dethridge and Beeby to have the power, and
not Parliament. However, Hughes finally agreed that half a loaf was better than
none and agreed to support the Bill. Mr Rodgers, a former Nationalist minister of
trade and customs from Victoria, openly attacked the Bill. He said he preferred
to leave industrial matters to the wages boards as they had then in Victoria. He
said the Labor Party could appoint its own judges to bring in a 30-hour week and
£10 a week wage.
The Bill to refer the proposal to a referendum was carried by
56 votes to two – the dissenters being Messrs Gregory and Rodgers. Watt and Hughes
supported the Bill. A number of Labor members, including Frank Anstey, Percy Coleman
and Billy Mahony, didn't vote.
The fight then moved into the electorates. A council of federal
unions was formed in Melbourne to urge a yes vote. The committee had unlimited
money to spend and millions of pamphlets were distributed with arguments by Matt
Charlton and Scullin in favor of the Bruce proposals.
The counter came when Albert Willis called an All-Australian
Congress of Trades Unions in Sydney and invited Charlton to attend. It was the
first meeting of the ACTU.
Charlton put up a passionate defence of his stand. He was told
that he had been guilty of an act of treachery against the working class. The miners
were particularly bitter, and they controlled his selection. Charlton said that
the proposal was the same as Labor supported in 1911 and said that Bruce had seen
the light. "For God's sake don't let your opinions bring disruption to the
Labor movement," he pleaded. He said every member of the Labor Party was
free to vote as he liked.
By 144 votes to 10, Charlton was rejected by the congress. It
was a humiliating defeat. In Melbourne, Maurice Blackburn was one of the few to
come out in opposition. On the other side of the political fence there was growing
confusion. The Nationalists in this state wanted it. They wanted to kill the
44-hour week. The manufacturers, retailers and wholesale houses all backed Bruce
with cash.
But Thomas R. Bavin, state leader of the Nationalist Party, was
against it. "You will never get industrial peace through a Court." He
pointed out that they would be giving the power to the next federal Labor government.
He had the foresight to see what such powers could lead to in the future.
"The federal proposals would vest the whole power over the fortunes of Australia
in a body of professional politicians sitting at Canberra who would be far removed
from contact with the electors," he told the Constitutional Association.
"An enormous administrative machinery, such as had never been attempted in
the world before, would be created to administer the affairs, of a large continent."
Bavin and I had disagreed on practically every issue in politics.
We were bitter opponents. But for once we thought alike. The Nationalists supporting
no formed a Federal Union with R. Clive Teece, KC. as its president. Bavin led
the campaign in NSW for the Nationalist no side, while I led the Labor side.
In Victoria, Bruce had more trouble with his own backers. The
Victorian manufacturers were afraid it would bring the 44-hour to that state. Some
of the Nationalist papers openly opposed Bruce for the first time. Sir Arthur Robinson,
a powerful industrial figure, led the no campaign for the federal union in that
state. He said he was opposed to giving more power to politicians who always wanted
more power. "These politicians will be meeting miles from anywhere surrounded
by thousands of public servants and they will get a distorted reflex of public opinion,"
he said prophetically. "Politicians cannot get a reflex of public opinion
when they are out of touch with the public. The atmosphere of Canberra will be
that of officialdom, the atmosphere of the tax gatherer, and not of the taxpayer."
Sir Walter Massy Greene agreed with that viewpoint. "It is
as easy to find icicles at the equator as to get the federal Parliament to agree
to limit Commonwealth powers," he said. Among those to join the Federal Union
campaign with the big money battalions in Victoria was a well-known barrister with
political aspirations, R.G. Menzies. He was also on the no side. It was all very,
very confusing to the average elector.
I campaigned throughout the state denouncing any plan to give
power to a legal oligarchy. There were huge audiences everywhere. In Goulburn
there were two attractions: Toti Dal Monte, the opera singer, and our meeting.
We attracted the bigger house, but Toti got the money. In Bathurst, the mover of
the motion congratulating me was a former engine-driver who been victimised in
the 1917 strike, J.B. Chifley. He pledged his loyalty and was supported by Gus
Kelly. Chifley still had to seek political honors. On the Sunday there was a vast
meeting of 75,000 in the Domain, all with hands upraised for a no vote. Some of
the federal Labor politicians had switched sides, leaving Charlton isolated. Our
final advertisement was directed against control of Australia by the "Three
Men." They were judges Lukin, Dethridge and Beeby, who would become economic
dictators of Australia as visualised by Bruce.
Bruce himself left Australia two days before the poll to go to
an Imperial conference. We appointed state government scrutineers at every polling
place. Before leaving, Bruce ordered the PMG to grant him an additional broadcast,
although it was against the previous order of the PMG that sides should have equal
time.
Then the numbers went up. We were all beaten. There were two
proposals. Both were defeated by some 400,000 votes in all. The majority against
them for no in Victoria was just on 250,000, in South Australia 120,000, West Australia
70,000 and Tasmania 10,000. There was a yes majority of 33,000 in New South Wales,
and 16,000 in Queensland, on the principal proposal. The majorities for no were
smaller on the question to give the Commonwealth powers to deal with industrial
emergencies.
The actual figures in NSW on the principal question were:
The chief lesson was that even though Parliament was practically unanimous, the
people still prefer to do their own thinking. It was certainly a topsy-turvy referendum.
Bruce's blunder
When a government realises that it is losing its grip on the
political situation it invariably commences to go from one blunder to another. It
panics. It loses its perspective. It listens to too many advisers. Then in a moment
of despair it is likely to take a desperate risk.
Страницы: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |