WATERFRONT WORK

Press, Volume LXXXV, Issue 25932, 12 October 1949, Page 6

WATERFRONT WORK

PARLIAMENI

MINISTER REPLIES TO CRITICISM DENIAL OF ALTERATION OF REPORT (New Zealand Press Association.) WELLINGTON, October 11. A denial that the annual report of the Waterfront Industry Commission had been altered after it was tabled was made by the Minister of Labour (Mr A. McLagan) in the House of Representatives this afternoon. He was ‘ replying to Mr W. A. Sheat <Opposi’-. tion. Patea). who said during a dis-' cussion of Labour estimates that the original typed copy of the report had been altered materially by someone to modify or tone down the commission’s criticism of the “spelling” system on the waterfront. Mr Sheat said the original import contained a reference to “considerable, abuse" of the spelling system but the word “considerable” had been altered to “an" in the printed report, which 1 was a deliberate falsification of the , original report adopted by the Waterfront Industry Commission. It was a! serious matter that a report should be j altered in that way and he wanted an : explanation from the Minister, show- • ing who altered the report and why. I Mr McLagan said that the typewrit- i ten report had been tabled to enable I members to get the report in time. The 1 typescript was the final draft of the' report and contained certain altera-1 tions in which the member for Patea apparently saw something sinister. Commission’s Concurrence I Mr McLagan : aid that the alterations i were made by himself in consultation I with the manager of the Waterfront Commission. It was entirely wrong to talk about abuse of the spelling sys-' tern in a report which no longer repre- ' sented the position to-day. The report I was not signed by members of the' commission until alter the alterations! were made. The port of Auckland was worst of I all as far as spelling \ as concerned, j but the position now was not as bad | as it used to be and there was an improvement else .vhere. said Mr Me- ; Lagan, who added: "Work on the waterfront is going on very well at I present.” Mr A. S. Sutherland (Opposition. Hauraki) said '.hat the Minister should do two things—bring work on the waterfront under the Arbitration Court system and stop “this closed union business." Mr McLagan said improvements in > waterfront work recorded in the re-; port were actual improvements and j that was what Mr Sutherland disliked. When Mr McLagan quoted from the I report extracts dealing with the im-1 provement in the rate of cargo hand- j ling and in the turn-round of ships, Opposition members made a ..umber! of interjections. Mr J. J. Maher ( Op-I position. Otaki) remarking: ‘The ship- j ping companies don’t say that." j Mr McLagan: It is a‘fact whatever the shipping companies say. Thev had i to say something to support their action in raising freight rates. Ships Wait for Cargo Mr McLagan raid all of last season's! farm produce in store had been shipped and at times ships had had to wait' for cargo. Stores had been cleared of: export cargoes of butter, meat, cheese. I and there had been instances of putting general cargo in reinge* ated; space because insufficient frozen cargo ■ was available. Work on the ..ater-l front was going better than for a long : time, and the record did not show that! the commission system had been a i failure. Some individual commissions i might have been failures, but the sys- ; tern had had major successes and i would continue to give results ’iven : the goodwill and sincerity of those as-I sociated with it. Vv aterfront harmony was not pro-! muted by daily, vociferous criticisms ’ of some critics, said Mr McLagan. tT’ Langstone < Independent Lab- I our. Roskill) said every opportunity! was taken m the House to attack de-i S en t working men on the waterfront, i in the mines, and elsewhere. Water- . siders worked as intelligently as any other group. There were many handi- i caps to the quick handling of cargo , for which watersiders were not to i biame. He had ceen told that in Auckland only one shipping company alSear in good ordei: and ! * s . lts car goes ready for load- I r»rri»r«°!i 01 '’ £ hif ‘ "' er S to be worked I carriers, n erchants. and others would I also have to work double shifts, said i pare^?| S do n so’ W ° Uld ‘ hey be Pre ' Mr McLagan: The answer is no Mr Langstone said of 2000 waters dei s in - .uckland only 700 were prepared to undertake all classes of work They were not to blame for that. I „ ? \ J McAlpine 'Opposition. Sei- I ?’• n) j. ? r course they are. They nom- i mated themselves. General Policy Questioned . , , R ' G ; Ge F? r . d 'Opposition. Ashourtor i askea if it was general Gov- I ernment policy that Ministers might s alter repos:? submitted by their departments. Had Mr McLagan altered i the report because it contained some- i thing he did not like. Mr McLagan replied that the report as altered was agreed to by all mem- | pers of the commission as represent- ! ms the true facts. Referring again to the rate of cargo working. Mr McLagan said congestion in wharf stores and in railways goods ’ sheds and a shortage of railway'wag- I gons had slowed down the rate of cargo working Opposition members conveniently forgot that accidents caused greater losses of time on the | waterfront than stoppages. He was consistently trying to reduce the loss of workmg time, both from stoppages accidents. Accidents cost I rVO.OOO working hours last year, but I the Opposition was not concerned with ! reducing the causes of accidents. Mr W. S. Goosman (Opposition. ! Piakoi said the report as printed was i not the report of the commission but I was a report dictated by the Minister. i Members of the commission were not j to blame for the alteration as they were at the mercy of the Minister’s dictatorship. It was a matter for con- ! cern that not the commission but the I Minister actually controlled the ! waterfront. Was there not a small j minority of men on the waterfront j who had dictated to the Minister? Mr N. Sullivan 'Opposition. Bay of Plenty) said it was nonsense to say I the Opposition wanted to nick a bone i with the watersiders. How did the 1 Minister think he could get peace on i the waterfront while Messrs Barnes j and Hill were still travelling through- J out New Zealand opposing everything the Minister sought to do? What was 1 the good of the House trying to shut ' its eyes to what those two men were doing? Mr McLagan said talk of dictator- | ship of the report was absurd. Only | recently Mr Goosman had argued that I Ministers must accept responsibility i for what was in departmental reports. He accepted that responsibility and ■ had pointed out to the commission that its report could be made more accurate. The commission unanimously agreed and the report was with their concurrence altered accordingly. The Minister said he was satisfied I with the position that obtained at a | great many ports. The great majority of the workers had confidence in him ! to fli them a fair deal. “Let them take a ballot of their own i and members will see what the result I is.” said Mr McLagan. “Some of them I will get a surprise/’ The Leader of the Opposition 'Mr 1 S. G. Holland): Why don’t you (jon- | duct a ballot? Mr McLagan said it was easy for a bal’ot of that kind to be sabotaged by getting a motion carried declaring the ballot black and by nutting men on to I watch. There was a ballot coming along that could not be avoided and that was the union’s biennial election of officers. The results of that ballot , would be most interesting and no one I would be able to influence the results. I T t was a secret ballot. j