DRAINAGE BOARD ELECTION

Press, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 23750, 23 September 1942, Page 2

DRAINAGE BOARD ELECTION

Objection by Labour Committee “UNFAIR AND BIASED ATTITUDE ” Objection to remarks made at a recent meeting about the nomination of a union sen clary to a vacant seat on the Christchu.ch Drainage Board was expressed in a letter received by the board last evening from the North Canterbury Labour Representat.on Committee, of the New Zealand Labour Party. After tne letter haa bsen read there was a s.iarp exchange between Miss M. E. Howard and Mr P. Harvey, who objected to the nomination of Mr T. Martin (sccr;tary of the Seamen's Union) as a candidate for the Linwood sub-district. The election held at the last meeting of the board resulted in the Labour Party losing its former representation.

“The committee wishes to enter an emphatic protest against the action of the board in making its appointment to the Linwood seat,” the letter stated. “This seal has been held by Labour for more than two terms, and at the last two elections, the electors who went to the poll left no doubt as to whether they desired a Labour member to represent them. We are perturbed at what seems to be an unfair and biased attitude adopted by the majority of the board. In making a temporary change from election by the people to appointments by local bodies; the Government was actuated to a certain extent by the thought that thg local bodies would co-operate to the fullest extent by taking a fair and impartial attitude when making appointments to fill casual vacancies. Generally speaking, local authorities have acted in accordance with the spirit of the regulations and in most cases th£ status quo has been maintained. It is regrettable that this has not been the case with the board, and we consider that it would have reflected more credit on numbers if they had acted in accordance with the spirit of the regulations. Mr Harvey's remarks were not in good taste, and it is to be hoped hj: regrets them Mr Martin is not a union Stcvolary, but a seamen's agent. The means by >vhieh members of the board earn their living should not be taken into co isi 'eralion when appointments are made." An allegation that Mr Harvey had started a “whisperin'! campaign” about her being on the board and at the same time having a position as a union secretary was made by Miss Howard. “I resent Mr Harvey’s statements in attacking my position on every possible occasion.” she said. “As a member of the board I have nothing to gain by being a union secretary. I have no objection to Mr Harvey being on the board because he is secretary of the South Island Motor Union. He stands for people who can afford to run round in motor cars—l stand for the workers.”

Miss Howard moved that Mr Harvey be instructed not to di-cuss the private way members earn their living, but this motion was later withdrawn. It was not right that any member of the board should go to a conciliation council and stand on the side opposite the intercuts of the board, said Mr Harvey. It was impossible to serve employees ana employers at the same time. He would have been pleased, he said, to vote for a Labour candidate if 't had not been a union secretary. Miss Howard bad taken up the wrong attitude. , Mr F. M. Robson (chairman): The fact that Miss Howard is a member of the board and also secretary of a union shou'd not prevent her appearing at a conciliation court.