DISCUSSION IN THE HOUSE

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22271, 9 December 1937, Page 12

DISCUSSION IN THE HOUSE

OPPOSITION MOTION TO ADJOURN VIEW OF MINISTER FOR MARINE “MEN WERE UNQUESTIONABLY WRONG” IFrom* Our Parliamentary Reporter.! WELLINGTON, December 8. Tile unusual course of moving the adjournment of the House to discuss the Auckland shipping hold-up was taken by the Opposition in the House of Representatives this afternoon, and led first to a long' and interesting argument about the validity of this step in view of the hold-up having been settled, and then to another discussion on the actual trouble at Auckland. The Government’s protest, raised on a point of order that since the dispute was settled it was not in order to move the adjournment, was not upheld by Mr Speaker. , /IIT . When Mr W. J. Poison (National, Stratford) moved the motion, the Hon. P Fraser (Minister for Marine) contended that it did not conform to the standing orders, as the subject was required to be of definite public importance. Pic believed that the dispute had been settled at Auckland, and thus there was no question of urgency. The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates (National, Kaipara» protested that the matter was of urgent importance. The Prime Minister (the Rt. Hon. M. J. Savage) following him, claimed that a motion based on a dispute which was not in existence was not in order. “It is undoubtedly a public matter; but the question is whether it is an urgent public matter,” said Mr Speaker, in reply to Mr W. A. Bodkin (National, Central Otago), who insisted that the only consideration Mr Speaker should take into account vvas whether the matter was one of major importance. The debate proceeded on similar lines, the Hon H. G. R. Mason (Attorney-General) and the Minister for Finance (the Hon. W. Nash) both contending that the motion could not be upheld as being in order. There was a touch of excitement in the discussion when Mr W. P. Endean (National. Parnell) was called to order by Mr Speaker for straying from the point, and making some reference to the relative liberty allowed in the Supreme Court and in the House. “Order,” called Mr Speaker. “What did you mean when you said one got a better run in the Supreme Court than in this place. You must not only withdraw the remark, but if any reflection was intended, apologise also.” Mr Endean withdrew the remark, and assured Mr Speaker that no reflection on the House or the chair was intended.

Giving his ruling, Mr Speaker saici he did not think he would be justified at the moment in preventing Mr Poison from proceeding with his motion; but if it did appear during the debate that the dispute was at an end, he would be prepared to accept a motion that would terminate the debate. Mr Poison’s Motion The necessity for an urgent investigation into the whole question of waterfront delays was emphasised by Mr Poison when he moved the adjournment of (he House. Mr Poison put forward reasons for his action under separate headings. He pointed to the gravity of the situation which had arisen with 24 vessels lying idle, involving the shipping companies and the general community in heavy losses. Carrying firms had had to dismiss employes because of their inability to obtain goods from the ships’ holds. Business had been dislocated by the holdup of goods urgently required for the Christmas and Now Year trade, and the reason advanced by Mr Poison was that such occurrences would occasion disorganisation in the conveyance of the Dominion's primary products to life world's markets. Accommodation in wool stores had been overtaxed, and delays in the shipment of dairy produce, frozen mutton and lamb, and chilled and frozen beef would result in heavy losses to the producers, as evidenced by the delays in chilled beef loadings some months ago, as - no advantage would be obtained from the high prices for such products normally ruling on the United Kingdom market at this season.

The Auckland dispute, Mr Poison said, was only a culminating point to waterfront trouble which represented a complete violation of an agreement which was binding in law. The waterside workers, Mr Poison said, had entered into an agreement that all disputes would be referred to a committee, on which both sides would be represented. That agreement had been endorsed by the Arbitration Court, and should have all tile binding force of an Arbitration Court award. When the men held up work they were not penalised, except through loss of their wages; but if the employers held up work, it would be a different matter. Much was expected from the bureau system of engaging waterfront labour, but so far it had neither prevented abuses nor improved the conditions of work.

Companies’ Attitude Mr W. J. .Bvoadfoot (National, Waitomo) said that all a shipping company did was to stand behind the agreement and ask that the men who had broken it shduld be punished. That was a fair and reasonable attitude, because the Government of today would say that the employers would bo punished if t! ey broke the agreement. “What is disturbing the minds of most people is the question how safe arc we, and to what extent the walerslders intend to live up to their agreement,” said Mr Coates. Mr Coates emphasised that hold-ups such as that at Auckland seriously interfered with the entire year’s shipping programme, to -the detriment of the trade of the Dominion. The Minister for Mines (the Hon. P. C. Webb) paid a tribute to the handling of the dispute by the Minister for Labour (the Hon. H. T. Armstrong). “1 am confident that the Minister will be responsible for a better system of waterfront work in this country,” Mr Webb said. “A great deal of criticism levelled against him in this debate has been most ungenerous.” A declaration hat in the light of the facts before him. the men were unquestionably in the wrong, was made by Mr Fraser. Mr Fraser said the Government had acted promptly, and with the assistance of shipowners and waterside workers had achieved a settlement in record time. Wherever there were violations of agreements, irrespective of which side was lo blame, the Government would not hesitate to condemn or to take whatever remedial action was necessary, “This particular dispute,” said Mr Fraser, “had all the possibilities of disaster. I would say the men were unquestionably wrong.' 1 qualify that by slating that I am only expressing ah opinion on the facts before me, and they reveal that the men who did not lake up work at 6 o'clock on Friday were wrong. The dispute spread because the employers, in the interests of discipline, decided to make the Waiana a preference ship.” In the circumstances, wholesale condemnation of all men on the waterfront, at Auckland was not justified. The Government knew there would be trouble, perhaps equivalent to the general strike in 1913. if the situation was not handled properly. Foret was the only alternative to the methods the Government had adopted, and he was grateful that common sense had prevailed. The eplsnde, minor as it was, contained all the possibilities of a major industrial conflict. The motion for the adjournment was talked out at 5.30 p.m. .. .