Proposal For Port Committees Dropped

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32031, 4 July 1969, Page 18

Proposal For Port Committees Dropped

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, July 3.

The Shipping and Seamen Amendment (No. 2) Bill which was thfe subject of a one-day protest stoppage last month by the Seamen’s Union, was reported back to Parliament today considerably amended.

The proposal which set up port committees to administer a disciplinary system for seamen has been removed. The port committee has been replaced by a Marine Council appeal committee. The Marine Council, established under the originating bill, remains part of the amended bill. The council will inquire into matters, relating to law on shipping, referred to it by the Minister of Marine.

The appeal committee will have the right to discipline officers and seamen if the governing body of one of the organisations on the Marine Council considers him un-

suitable for employment. But disciplinary action can be taken only where no penalty in respect of that conduct has been imposed in accordance with the rules of the union or organisation to which the offending person belongs, or where a union penalty does not exist.

The appeal committee may impose disciplinary action where the employing body on the council believes the union penalty was inadequate. The bill no longer includes the clause which would have allowed the proposed port committees to hear what the unions described as “hearsay evidence that would not be admitted in a court of law.”

Instead, the new appeal committee will be deemed to be a commission of inquiry under the Commission of In-

quiry Act, 1908, and the act’s provisions will apply accordingly.

When the committee hears applications for suspension, it will “follow the rules of natural justice,” according to the amended bill.

The report on the bill was presented by the chairman of the Labour and Mining Committee, Mr H. V. Donald (Nat., Wairarapa). In a short debate afterwards Mr R. L. Bailey (Lab., Heretaunga) said there had been vast changes to the bill and it had come back as a new bill. The controversial sections had been amended to such a degree that the bill should now meet the requirements of all those who had to work under it, he said. Mr E. S. F. Holland (Nat., Fendalton) denied that the changes had been vast. The main change, he said, had been that the section referring to port committees had been deleted. The proposed committee had been replaced by an appeal committee, he said.

The report on the bill was adopted.