Chapter X: Salient Features of the Australasian Democracy (2)

The great maritime strike, though it has been followed by the Broken Hill strikes of 1891 and 1892, the shearers' strikes of 1891 and 1894, and periodical hostilities at Newcastle, has modified largely the attitude of the working classes in regard to the efficacy of industrial warfare. The later struggles have principally affected Queensland and New South Wales, which was the first of the Provinces to attempt to deal with the matter by Act of Parliament. A Board of Conciliation was established upon the recommendation of a Royal Commission, but is admitted to have been a failure in the absence of any compulsory reference of disputes. On the occasion of the most recent disturbances, at Newcastle in 1896, which originated upon an application of the miners for higher wages, the Premier, following English precedents, intervened, and was enabled to settle the dispute, though not until the strike had lasted for three months and had caused much of the foreign trade to be diverted to foreign ports. Actual {282} and prospective losses caused the owners, though they made a small concession at the request of the Premier, to refuse to reinstate the miners except at a slightly lower rate of wages than that against which they had struck. The offer, as modified by the Premier, was accepted by the miners, who had thus, at the cost of much misery, brought about a reduction in their wages. The disturbances of 1894 in Queensland, which reached an acute stage, were met by the Government by resolute administration under special powers obtained by Act of Parliament, but no attempt was made to intervene between the disputants or to make use of the Conciliation Act of 1892, which, as far as I know, has remained a dead letter. It is useless, therefore, to discuss the Act further than to say that its machinery can only be set in motion by a Local Authority, but it may not be unfair to attribute the unsympathetic attitude of the Government to the bitterness engendered by the extravagances of the Labour Party.

In most of the Provinces neither the employers nor the workmen are prepared, as yet, to bind themselves to refer their disputes to an impartial tribunal and to abide by its decision. Though the tendency in that direction is on the increase, it has been suggested that, in the meanwhile, Boards should be constituted which would be empowered to consider disputes, and, after the examination of books and witnesses, to issue a public report. The judgment would not be enforceable, but might be expected, in {283} the majority of cases, to lead to a settlement of the difficulty; at any rate, it would influence public opinion, which is a large factor in all industrial struggles. But South Australia and New Zealand have passed this stage, and have placed drastic measures on their Statute Book which provide, in certain cases, for compulsory awards. The compulsory provisions of the South Australian Act apply only to employers and workmen who are organised and have voluntarily accepted them by the process of registration. Should they become involved in an industrial dispute, the Governor may, upon the recommendation of the President of the State Board of Conciliation, cause the matter to be referred to it, and the Board may make an award which will be binding upon the parties concerned. In New Zealand, on the other hand, while the proceedings must be initiated by employers or workmen who are registered, the other party, though unregistered, may be called upon, should the Board of Conciliation fail to effect a settlement, to attend before the Court of Arbitration and to obey its award, subject to the general proviso that an employer may suspend or discontinue any industry and an employe cease from working therein. In neither Province is a strike or lock-out permitted during the deliberations of the tribunal.

The Acts do not apply to unorganised workers, except indirectly, partly because they have not been the cause of the great industrial struggles of the past, {284} partly because it would be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce awards against them. It may also have been thought that they would be encouraged thereby to form themselves into Unions, and that the best chance of industrial peace lies in negotiations between responsible bodies of workers and employers who will have too much at stake to be willing to proceed thoughtlessly to extremities. As regards registration, it has been found that the workers of South Australia, though their leaders had supported the compulsory provisions, have been backward in this direction; but that, in New Zealand, no such hesitation has been displayed. The workers in that country do not appear to share the disinclination to agree to the intervention of an arbitrator which is stated to be increasing in Great Britain.

In South Australia, to give a brief account of the new tribunals, Boards of Conciliation may be either Private Boards, constituted under industrial agreements and endowed with such jurisdiction as may be confided to them in the agreements; or Public Boards, which include Local Boards constituted for particular localities and particular industries, and the State Board of Conciliation. In New Zealand, the first reference is to an elective Board of Conciliation constituted for the district in which the dispute has occurred. Should it fail to effect a settlement, the matter may be referred to the Court of Arbitration, which, similarly with the State Board {285} of Conciliation in South Australia, consists of an equal number of representatives of employers and employed and a chairman nominated by the Government, who must, in the former country, be a judge of the Supreme Court. These tribunals are invested with full powers to require the attendance and examination of witnesses, and may either make an award which shall take effect for a period not exceeding two years, and may be enforced by legal process against associations and individuals, or they may confine themselves, at their discretion, to a recommendation which will be merely a direction to the parties concerned.

In South Australia the State Board has also the power to inquire into, and report upon, industrial disputes, though the parties be not registered. This portion of the Act has alone been brought into operation, and that unsuccessfully, as, though the representatives of employers and employed on the Board arrived at a unanimous decision upon a dispute affecting the rate of wages, the employer in question refused to be guided by its judgment. The general failure of the Act, though the affirmation of the principle of Conciliation has been valuable, has been due partly to the absence of serious disputes in South Australia, but principally to the unwillingness both of employers and employed to place themselves in a position in which they will lose control over the terms of employment.

The Act passed by the Government of New {286} Zealand, on the contrary, has hitherto been entirely efficacious, and has prevented the interruption of harmonious relations between employers and employed. It was first tested upon a dispute which arose over the action of the Consolidated Goldfields Company in reducing wages in the mines from 10s. to 8s. 4d. per day. The men, who were not members of a union, went out on strike, and were then offered wages at the rate of 9s. Upon the advice of their leaders, the men accepted the offer provisionally; and, having formed themselves into a union which they promptly caused to be registered, referred the matter to the Board of Conciliation. The decision of the Board, which it is unnecessary to specify, was refused by the men, who appealed to the Court of Arbitration. The award of the latter body, which fixed the wages of miners at 9s. 6d. per day, a rate smaller than that which had been received by the men, but larger than that against which they had protested, has been observed loyally by the Company and its employes.

The next dispute arose at Christchurch upon the expiration of the agreement which had been in operation between the boot manufacturers and their workmen for several years, and upon the desire of the former to substitute new terms which were regarded as distasteful. It was concerned with several matters of detail, but hinged principally upon the question whether non-unionists should be allowed to work with unionists. As in the {287} former case, an appeal was made from the Board of Conciliation's award to the Court of Arbitration, whose decision, it is noteworthy, both sides had signified their willingness to accept. The award applied to all the bootmakers in the Province with the exception of three or four who were not identified with the boot manufacturers' association, and was accompanied by remarks pronounced, it must be remembered, by a judge of the Supreme Court, which cannot fail to be of interest to the Trades Unionists in all parts of the world. I do not, therefore, apologise for quoting them at length:--

"The Arbitration Court has not hitherto been in the habit of giving reasons for its decision. It appears to the Court that, sitting as arbitrators, it should as a general rule follow the ordinary practice of arbitrators and simply give its decision without reasons. In the present case, however, so far as I myself am concerned, I think it is desirable that I should, with respect to part of the award, give some indications of the reasons which have induced the Court to arrive at its conclusion. The part of the award to which I refer is that which relates to clauses 1 and 2 of the general rules which the Manufacturers' Association has submitted to the Court: '1. (_a_) It is the individual right of the employer to decide whom he shall employ or dismiss. (_b_) It is the individual right of the workman to accept or refuse work from any employer. {288} 2. Employers or employes, either individually or through any organisation, shall not discriminate for or against any person because he is or is not a member of any organisation, neither shall there be any distinction between organised or non-organised labour; both shall work under the same conditions and receive equal pay for equal work.' The Bootmakers' Union, in opposition to the rules so suggested, put forward the contention that employment should be limited to members of the Bootmakers' Union. The Court, however, is not able to accept the extreme view which has been put forward by the Bootmakers' Union. If it were accepted it might follow that an employer, who had work to do and who could not get Union men to do it, might have to bring his operations to a standstill. The effect of it also would be that non-Union men would be absolutely prevented from earning their living in the workshops of the members of the Manufacturers' Association. That, so far as I am concerned, seems to be going beyond what the Court ought to decree. On the other hand, however, I am not prepared to accept absolutely clauses 1 and 2 in the form in which the Manufacturers' Association has put them forward. The Court ought, I think, to comply with the intention of the Legislature as evidenced in the provisions of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and ought not to do anything which is calculated to destroy or weaken any industrial organisation. The {289} intention of the Act is indicated in its title--the Act is an Act to encourage the formation of Industrial Unions and Associations. The Court, therefore, ought not to do anything which will tend to destroy or weaken an industrial association, or interfere with the manifest intention of the Legislature as disclosed by the Act. We have this also, that for the last three years the shops of the Manufacturers' Association have been practically working as Union shops. It is true that manufacturers say--probably with truth--that they were so worked because they could not help it, but the fact remains that they have been working in that way, and the proposed new rules, as put forward by the manufacturers, expressly reverse the previous mode of working. We have this also, that the previous statement was a statement agreed to between the Manufacturers' Association and the Bootmakers' Union, the conference which followed the statement was between the Association and the Union, and the dispute now before the Court is between the Association and the Union. It is only by means of Unions that labour can take advantage of the Act. Under these circumstances, it seems to me not unreasonable that the Union should stipulate for special privileges to its members. The Union are fighting the battle, and it is fair that they should say that the results of the victory, so far as it is a victory, and has any beneficial results, should accrue to them, at any rate in the first instance. They fight {290} the battle for their members, and not for the sake of outside labour. Under these circumstances it appears to me that it is quite reasonable that the members of the Union should have preference in employment; that members of the Union who are competent should not have to wait about while non-members of the Union are employed in the shops of the Boot Manufacturers' Association. The Court, therefore, has modified Rules 1 and 2 in this direction. I need hardly say that each case to be decided under this Act must depend on the particular circumstances attaching to it; that no one case can be treated as a precedent to any future case, and that because under the particular circumstances of a particular case, this Court has decided as it has decided, that is no reason why, under different or varying circumstances, a similar decision ought to be come to. The Court in coming to its decision, takes into consideration not general principles so much as the special circumstances of each particular case."

The award, which modified the regulations on the lines laid down by the Court, is regarded as a great triumph by Trade Unionists, who are, not unnaturally, inclined to apply it as a precedent to all organised trades.

A possible exemplification of the efficacy of the Act occurred at the end of 1896, when the engineers employed in the Australian trade of the Union Steamship Company of New Zealand asked that {291} their wages might be raised to the rate which had prevailed before the financial troubles. They took advantage of the increased traffic caused by the holidays in order to emphasise their demands. The engineers of the ships plying in New Zealand waters made a similar request, which was at once acceded to by the Company, but did not attempt to exert undue pressure. I am not prepared to state that the difference in attitude was due to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act of the latter country, but the coincidence is calculated to encourage that belief. The Managing Director of the Company (Mr. James Mills) told me that he was a hearty supporter of compulsion, not so much because he believed in arbitration, as because a strike or lock-out was obviated, and the parties to a dispute, often trivial at the outset, were brought together before they had been embittered by mutual recriminations. Mr. Kingston, the Premier of South Australia, and the principal promoter of the South Australian Act, has written in a similar strain:--

"Conciliation Boards should be established in anticipation of the differences they are designed to prevent. On the occasion of a great strike, the public cries out for conciliation. Suggestions are received from all quarters recommending Conferences and Arbitration; but when war has been declared, and the disputants, as it were, are at each other's throats, each hopeful of ultimate success, they are seldom in the mood to listen to peacemakers. If either party fears the result of the {292} contest, it may favour pacific counsels. There is, however, a vehement probability that the stronger party will reject all overtures and insist on an unconditional surrender and all the advantages which victory can command. The dispute is then determined, not on its merits, but by sheer strength. The vanquished, smarting under a sense of defeat and injustice, capitulate only with the view to the early renewal of the struggle under more favourable circumstances."[11]

(5) A large proportion of the workmen of Australasia are convinced believers in Protection in the widest sense of the word. As far as their opinion can be ascertained from the representation of Labour in Parliament, it is unanimous in Victoria, South Australia, and New Zealand. In New South Wales, as has been seen, the Labour Members have, for the sake of solidarity, sunk the fiscal issue; but the majority are Protectionists, and have proposed that the question of the tariff should be settled for a fixed period by a plebiscite. Thereby they believe that they will secure Protection and continue to be unfettered in their support of the more advanced party. In Queensland, also, the Labour programme states that the fiscal issue is not to be regarded as a party question.

Protection, the Labour Members admit, raises prices to the consumer; but they contend that, if prices are high, employers can afford to pay high {293} wages, and that the strength of Trades Unionism should be sufficient to enforce them. To put their argument, such as it is, in a nutshell, it is better to have high prices and high wages than low prices combined with low wages and uncertain employment. Then, as combination is expected to keep wages at a high point, it is obvious that it can be exercised most effectually over a small area, and we find the South Australian Labour Members voting against a resolution in favour of inter-provincial Free Trade, and Labour Members generally imbued with an actual, if not avowed, opposition to Federation, the first result of which would, it is believed, be the removal of fiscal barriers. They profess, indeed, a desire for Federation on a democratic basis, but are, as far as their material interests are concerned, under the influence of a patriotism which is intensely provincial and does not take account of national, much less of imperial, considerations.

If he lives under a protective tariff, the workman asks himself of what use is it to exclude the products of cheap labour if the cheap labourer be allowed to enter the country and compete with him on the spot. The agitation against Asiatic immigrants has, I am prepared to admit, a wider basis, and rests largely upon physical repugnance and the fear that they might enter in such large numbers as to swamp the white population. To that extent it appeals to the Free Traders of New South Wales, who have not been backward in their support of anti-Chinese {294} legislation, and meets with the general support of Australians, as was shown by the unanimity with which the Premiers, assembled in Conference early in 1896, decided against participation in the Anglo-Japanese treaty and in favour of the extension to other coloured races of the restrictions placed upon the influx of the Chinese. But, from the point of view of the working classes, antipathy is felt, principally, towards competitors who have a lower standard of comfort, and the difficulties placed in the way of Imperial statesmanship are persistently ignored.

Thence, by an easy transition of thought, the objection is extended to all labourers whose competition, through the stress of necessity, may tend to reduce wages. The indigent Italian or German is equally undesirable, as are indigent Englishmen, who alone, among Europeans, are likely to arrive in large numbers. Some of them, it is known, have been assisted to emigrate, by philanthropic agencies or otherwise, because they were unable to earn a livelihood at home. South Australia, Victoria, Tasmania, and New Zealand seek to exclude paupers by the provision that the owner or master of a ship bringing persons who are likely to become a charge upon the public or any charitable institution, may be called upon to execute a bond to pay all expenses incurred within five years for the maintenance or support of such persons. But the workman reserves his strongest condemnation for the proposal {295} that he should be compelled to contribute, through taxation or Custom duties, to State-aided immigration, which increases the number of his competitors. Herein is seen the cloven foot of the capitalist, which must be concealed, except in Queensland, where capital and labour are in open antagonism and the former is at present in the ascendant.

The ultimate development of protective ideas is found in the annual tax levied on foreign commercial travellers in New Zealand and in the desire to subject immigrants to physical as well as pecuniary and racial tests. In New Zealand the Undesirable Immigrants Exclusion Bill, and the equally unsuccessful Public Health Bill of 1896, forbade masters of ships, under a heavy penalty, to introduce persons who are consumptive into the Provinces. Consumption, it is known, has proved deadly to the Maoris, and, to an even greater extent, to half-castes.

It is not my intention to discuss the wisdom of the measures by which Australians seek to keep out Asiatics, indigent Europeans, criminals, and persons in ill-health. The Imperial Government, of course, can have no objection to the imposition of pecuniary disqualifications which, being of general application, do not conflict with treaty obligations, though the policy is diametrically opposed to that which has prevailed hitherto in England. I merely wish to point out the strength of Australasian opposition to unrestricted competition, and to express {296} considerable sympathy with workmen who, having seen, or having learnt from their parents, how much misery and pauperism are to be found in older countries, are inhospitable to strangers and will do all in their power to prevent a fall to a similar level. Many of them have noted the existence of destitution in Sydney and Melbourne, and dread the operation of any cause which would be likely to intensify it.

It cannot be denied that, as England is the principal competitor with native manufactures, and the only European country from which immigration on a large scale is likely to arise, some of the working men entertain a feeling of hostility towards the Mother Country. Ill-feeling is also promoted by the condition of financial dependence. Australians are inclined to complain, however unreasonably, that, had it not been for the temptations to which they were exposed by British capitalists, their Provinces could not have incurred the extravagant expenditure under which they are suffering and must continue to suffer. Australia, it has been said, owes to England merely the gratitude of the poor man toward his pawnbroker. I should not have mentioned the existence of these views, which are confined to a small section of the community, were it not that they seem ominous for the future, when we remember the principal cause of the estrangement between the Eastern and Western States of America. In spite of inquiries and {297} observation, I have been unable to form an opinion as to the general attitude, which is being modified year by year by the increase in the proportion of native-born Australians. At one extreme of the social scale are those who bask in the sunshine of titled vice-royalty, at the other those in whom the continual struggle for existence precludes the possibility of national, not to mention Imperial, ideals. The large intermediate classes, which will control the future, appear to be animated by great sympathy with the English people. I am led to believe that the boisterous loyalty of the past has been replaced by a deeper feeling of kinship, which was displayed in marked fashion on the occasion of the German Emperor's telegram after the Transvaal raid. On the other hand, the growing independence of a young nation and the sentimental, but none the less real, objection to the term "Colonial," which is regarded as a mark of inferiority, have convinced some Imperialistic Australians that the shortest road to Federation lies through separation. Others, I have been surprised to note, do not consider that permanence of friendly relations necessarily implies continuance under one flag. Englishmen will be disappointed to learn that there is little general appreciation, especially among native-born Australians, of the benefits accruing from the protection of the British fleet. Never having known the horrors of war and removed from the area of great armaments, they are not aware of the dangers {298} against which they are guarded. In fact, many of them grudge the "contributions without representation" that are given towards the maintenance of the Australian squadron. In foreign politics Australians are strongly Imperialistic, and will respect Great Britain as long as she maintains the dignity of her position. In domestic affairs they resent the interference of the Colonial Office, rarely though it be exercised, and do not take sufficient account of international difficulties. They are satisfied, moreover, with existing conditions, and do not manifest any desire for closer union with Great Britain at present, though any proposals emanating from the Imperial Government will be received with respectful attention and may meet with theoretical approval; and, while the recent Presidential election in the United States convinced them of the disadvantages of Republican institutions, they are prepared to wait upon the natural evolution of events, and believe that, in the meanwhile, we should strive, through the press, travel, and otherwise, to become better acquainted with each other's ideas and aspirations, and to correct many of the wrong impressions which prevail both in Australia and Great Britain. This policy is not heroic but practical, especially if it could be accompanied by a greater identification of Australia with the Empire. If a few hundred Australians could be recruited, in spite of the lowness of the pay, for service in the Army and Navy, they would, I am convinced, upon {299} their return, do much to broaden the minds of their countrymen. Australia and New Zealand, it must be remembered, are isolated from the rest of the world. Again, some of the vacancies in the Indian Civil Service might be filled by examinations held in Australia simultaneously with those in England. These suggestions, which could be amplified and extended by men of greater experience, may be regarded as trivial and unimportant, but I am confident that they indicate the direction in which Englishmen can most effectually seek to retain the affections of their Australasian kinsfolk. The problems of Australian Federation will tax all the resources of statesmanship, and must, in my opinion, be solved before there can be any profitable discussion of modified and closer relations with the Mother Country. It seems to me that the Victorian or Queenslander must realise that he is an Australian before he can be expected to appreciate the meaning of the words, "Civis Britannicus Sum."

The subject of Australian Federation has been discussed at length in a preceding chapter. I need only point out that politicians are bound to recognise three lines of severance: the artificial boundaries between one Province and another, the diversity of opinions engendered by differences of climate, as exemplified principally in the attitude in regard to Polynesian labour, and the divergence of development between the denizens of towns and {300} the more settled areas and those who are struggling against the inclemencies of nature in the back country. I felt, and others have chronicled a similar impression, that I had entered into a different country when I travelled in the Western Downs of Queensland. I found myself, if I may generalise from a limited experience of shearers, among a class of men who are thoroughly honest but absolutely narrow-minded and interested only in matters which concern their means of livelihood. They form their opinions from an advanced organ of labour, which is their principal, if not only, literature, and even such of them as are emigrants from Great Britain have little knowledge of the leading events of recent years.

The urban population, of course, is in a different position, and is kept by the newspapers in touch with local and Imperial affairs. Apart from the causes of the aggregation of large centres which have been discussed in the opening pages of this chapter, and may be supplemented by the observations of Sir Charles Dilke,[12] it may be noted, as a subsidiary influence, that a high standard of comfort makes people unwilling to face the hardship of the bush, that squatters are inclined to place their sons in urban professions, and that education turns out clerks rather than manual labourers. But the dwellers in towns are, on the whole, comfortably situated; even Melbourne and Sydney do not {301} show an average of more than 2.73 and 4.87 persons to the acre; but these figures include the suburbs, and must be amended if the metropolis proper is solely regarded.

But, in spite of this consideration, the working classes of Australasia have little to complain of. Destitution exists, as is inevitable under present conditions, but many workers, especially in Victoria, are owners of their homes, and all the younger men have had the benefit of a general system of national education and of the favourable situation of their class. This is due partly to the position attained, and not subsequently lost, when the rush of men to the goldfields produced a scarcity of labour; partly to the fact which has already been noted, that the men who emigrated from Great Britain were imbued with the spirit which qualified them to assert themselves. Hitherto they have not proved themselves unworthy of their nationality. They are uniformly courteous, in my experience, to those who are civil to them, and do not expect the servility of older countries, and are the most law-abiding people in the world. On a Saturday night in Coolgardie I found things to be as quiet as in a small country town in England. The larrikinism of Melbourne and Sydney has been much exaggerated, and does not extend beyond the capitals; in the former city, at the annual festival which marks the recurrence of the Melbourne Cup, the behaviour of the crowd is such {302} as would be a credit to any country. But Australians and New Zealanders, as any visitor cannot but note, take their pleasures sadly, and have transplanted the seriousness of a Northern land to a climate which should lend itself to merriment and laughter. How far their character has been modified I am not prepared to say: on the one hand, employment is not subject to seasonal interruptions; on the other, the pressure of cold upon industry is entirely wanting. The climate has, however, in spite of the denunciations of the Prohibitionists, undoubtedly conduced to temperate habits. Time after time did I notice, during my travels, that all the company were drinking tea, and I have been assured that shearers and other labourers no longer waste their earnings upon drink. The temperance of the younger generation has also been promoted by the spread of education and by the love of athletics; which necessitates physical soundness. Speaking generally and responsibly, the working classes, which form the backbone of every country, though they pay high rent, earn high wages, and, as they do not pay high prices for their food or clothing, are enabled to become self-respecting members of a self-respecting community.

[1] August 8, 1896.

[2] 1893, vol. ii. pp. 456, 457.

[3] July 25, 1896.

[4] "A Statistical Account of the Seven Colonies of Australasia, 1895-6," by T. A. Coghlan, p. 345.

[5] _Ibid._, p. 359.

[6] "A Statistical Account of the Seven Colonies of Australasia, 1895-6," p. 357.

[7] Victorian Year Book, 1894, p. 648.

[8] Parliamentary Debates of New Zealand, vol. 96, p. 901.

[9] _New Zealand Times_, January I, 1897.

[10] _Australasian Review of Reviews_, September, 1896.

[11] _Australasian Review of Reviews_, August 20, 1894.

[12] "Problems of Greater Britain," vol. ii. pp. 246-8.

{303}