HARBOUR BOARD MEMBERSHIP

Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25552, 21 July 1948, Page 4

HARBOUR BOARD MEMBERSHIP

BILL CRITICISED BY MR MCALPINE

REPRESENTATION FOR WATERSIDERS

(From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, July 20. “A masterpiece of muddled thinking which would only add new anomalies to the old problems of harbour boards without removing any of the existing ones,’’ was the description given by Mr J. K. McAlpine (Opposition, Selwyn) to the Harbours Amendment Bill, when the second reading was decided by the House of Representatives to-day. If the Minister of Marine (Mr F. Hackett) had sought by arranging to appoint waterfront representatives to have more practical men on harbour boards, tne remedy hdd been in his hands previously in the powers of the appointment of existing Government representatives. Mr McAlpine, a former chairman of the Lyttelton Harbour Board, asked if it was fair proportional representation that the waterfront workers should have 27 members on boards throughout New Zealand while the total number of those representing the payers of dues was only 12. He said that by sheer weight of numbers the Waterside Union would be able to outvote all the other 13 organisations, which were also able technically to elect workers’ representatives. For instance, at Lyttelton, there were 900 registered watersiders, and the representatives of the other organisations would not total more than 200. Mr McAlpine added that he did not think it could be said that watersiders had shown in recent years any great desire to assist harbour boards m their working of ports.

Representation Inconsistency The bill was inconsistent in the representation it gave the workers, said Mr McAlpine. At Auckland, Wellington, and Otago there were to be three workers’ representatives, the same number as represented the payers of dues, but at Lyttelton, Bluff and Gisborne, there were to be two workers’ representatives compared with only one representative of the payers of tiUCS. . , X, Mr McAlpine attacked the provisions of the oil! which gave an appeal board the right to deal with appeals by harbour ’employees against boards. “I submit that the Minister is taking away the powers of the boards,’’said Mr McAlpine. _ Mr R. M. Algie (Opposition, Remuera): It means that they will no longer be the employers. Mr McAlpine appealed to the Minister to consider carefully the provisions of the bill before it was finally passed with a view to amending many of its clauses. Mr Hackett, moving the second reading, said the appointment of men of practical experience on harbour boards was one of the main objects in the bill, which would bring about greater efficiency in the working of harbours. Appointments would be made from a panel-of names submitted by 13 or 14 organisations engaged in the waterfront industry. Mr W. A. Sheat (Opposition, Patea): Including seagulls? “Undemocratic Bill” Mr Sheat said the bill cut aerpss the recommendations of the local government committee set up by the Government, which reported to the House in 1945. One very definite recommendation was that representation should not be given on local bodies to sectional interests. Now the Government was flagrantly setting that principle aside with one of the most undemocratic bills to come before this Parliament. The only explanation seemed to be that watersiders had sufficient influence on the Government to get what they wanted.

Mr Sheat said there could be no proposal more improper than one to place additional responsibility in the hands of a section of the community which, by recent actions in the holding up or food ships for Britain, had proved its irresponsibility. In spite of what the Government said about Communists, the outcome xrf Jthis legislation would be that a Communist would be apSointed to the Auckland Harbour oard, supported by fellow travellers such as those who had caused the recent trouble. i Mr Sheat said it was significant that Several members of the Government who had supported the local government committee’s report were absent from the House.

Mr C. H. Chapman (Government, Wellington North) said the bill gave the 'Opposition a chance to voice yet again their hatred of the watersiders. The principle of worker representation in industry was sound and the bill was justified for that alone. The debate was adjourned at 5.30 p.m.