INDUSTRIAL UNREST

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25226, 3 July 1947, Page 3

INDUSTRIAL UNREST

MENTION IN UPPER HOUSE

MAIDEN SPEECH OF MR J. ROBERTS

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, July 2. An appeal for closer co-operation between workers and farmers was made by Mr J. Roberts (Wellington), moving the Address-in-Reply motion in the Legislative Council to-day. Mr Roberts said all sections of the community employed in production of goods and services should have a voice in the management of industry. Mr Roberts said propaganda by political and economic interests aimed to create a division between workers and farmers. The appointment of the Dairy Industry Commission was a progressive step which would tend toward co-operation between the farmer and the Government. The money which the farmer received was his wage, and he was entitled to a say in the management of his industry. Speaking of waterside workers, Mr Roberts said if there were less press talk and less drawing attention to the few who stepped over the mark, then, with honest and decent leadership, these men would give grand service to New Zealand. He had been associated with waterside workers since the wrecking of the 1913 strike. People needed to understand the psychology of waterfront labour before they could understand the men themselves.

"One side is as blameworthy as the other in this matter,” said Mr Roberts. “I can take councillors to any port in New Zealand to see the greatest cooperation in the history of New Zealand in the loading and discharging of ships.” Mr Roberts said there had been disputes in Auckland and Wellington, but the great majority of men were willing to give good service. “A lot of trouble arises from pinpricking the men unnecessarily,” he said. Criticism of Press Exaggeration and aggravation of industrial unrest in New Zealand were attributed to the press by Mr J. T. Paul (Wellington), who seconded the motion. “There is industrial unrest in this country, but it is less severe than in other countries,” said Mr Paul. Industrial unrest was an inheritance from the past, and it was not good for the country to live on grievances of the past. He advocated an improvement in the law covering conciliation and arbitration, particularly to avoid delays. Mr Paul said there were columns in the about unfcest in industry, but little had been heard of industrial accidents, which were responsible for the loss of many more working days. The press suggested a firm hand should be used to handle disputes, but a firm hand might bring civil war. The firm hand shown in the United States would cause more trouble than any other law passed there in the last 10 years. Industrial unrest would be solved by the ultimate triumph of common sense.