Parliament— Wharf Control: Royal Commission Suggested

Greymouth Evening Star, 31 July 1947, Page 2

Parliament— Wharf Control: Royal Commission Suggested

(PiAi ) WELLINGTON, July 30. A suggestion that a Royal Commission, or a select committee from the House should conduct a thorough investigation, with full publicity, into all aspects of waterfront problems was made by Mr W. A. Sheat (Opposition, Patea) when the waterfront situation was discussed in the House of Representatives today. The matter should be dealt with by legislation and not by the war-time regulations. -

No decision had yet been made to set up a new waterfront commission, reiterated the Minister of Labour (Mr A. McLagan), answering a question by Mr Sheat, who had quoted newspaper reports of July 23 of further discussions with representatives of shipowners and Water.siders. Mr McLagan said that Mr Sheat had apparently misread or misunderstood the newspaper reports, because nothing in them conflicted with an earlier reply to Mr Sheat that no decision on a new commission had yet beeh made. The discussions now proceeding with representatives of shipowners and waterside workers were purely exploratory, to ascertain what measure of agreement could be arrived at with the parties directly concerned with the working of the waterfront, Mr McLagan said. When the discussions were completed,, the Government would consider the whole position, and a decision would then be made. “Desire to Evade House” Mr Sheat, discussing the Minister’s reply, said he had been informed that the commission would consist of two representatives of the water-, siders, two shipowners’ representatives, and two Government representatives. The Minister had shown a very strong desire to avoid the issue and evade the House. For the last six months waterfront control had been in the hands of a one-man commission pending the constitution of a new commission.

Mr W. S. Goosman (Opposition, Piako) said the Minister was a master of evasion. The Government had shown it could not control the Waterfront, which had become a bottleneck so far as exports were concerned. Today there, was an Arbitration CoUrt functioning, but it was not good enough for the waterfront industry. Two commissions had already been knocked out by the waterfront, the fate of work had gone down with every waterfront commission, and New Zealand’s waterfront was the “joke of the World.” Mr W. Sullivan (Opposition, Bay of Plenty) said he disapproved the lack of interest the Minister was taking in the waterfront situation., He asked the Minister if it was the aim of the watersiders to obtain control of the waterfronts of the country. The position was drifting from bad to Worse and a bad situation was at present developing in Auckland. Contract System Suggested Mr Sullivan urged that a contract system of work should be instituted on the waterfront. Mr T. H. McCombs (Government, Lyttelton): The men have been asking for that for the last 20 years. Mr Sullivan: Well, get to work and give them something. “Each week 20,000 tons of loading is lost through the reduction in hours of work,” Mr Sullivan said. “We want to get more goods out of the country, but the Minister sits in the House as a big, strong, silent man, unable to do anything about .it.” “Never in the history of this country has any Government adopted such an attitude of hopelessness and helplessness as the present. Government,” said Mr W. A. Bodkih (Opposition, Central Otago). “It had been a ’question of ‘appease, appease, appease.’ The watersiders are led by a handful of militants, who are holding up-the Government. Messrs

Barnes and company are clamouring to have a showdown with the Minister, and on his own showing the Minister has been ‘toadying’ to them with a policy of ‘peace at any price’ and ‘name ydur own terms, boys.’ ”

Mr A. G. Osborne (Government, Onehuhga): Just a lot of drivel.

Mr Bodkin said the Government had been guilty of lamentable weakness. It knew it could not afford to fall out with the watersiders, and toadied to them, and the watersiders knew it?

Mr McLagan, who faced an incessant stream of interjections from Opposition members when he rose to speak, said that he had seen men working in the mines day after day to the limit of physical endurance. An Opposition member: Tell us about the waterfront.

Mr McLagan said that those miners did not get a return for their work to enable them to spend thousands of guineas on racehorses. An uproar followed, pierced by Opposition cries of “Shame’’ and “Withdraw.”

When Mr Speaker (Mr R. McKeen) secured order, a point of order was raised,, and subsequently Mr McLagan said he would be willing to withdraw the remark, though it had not been directed at the member for Piako. Contract System

Mr McLagan said the exploratory talks at present in progress included discussions on the possibility of introducing a contract system on the waterfront. It was not correct to say that the method of calculating the rate of work on the waterfront had been changed. He considered that the Opposition’s statements Were all part of a move to .sabotage conditions on the waterfront. Opposition voices: No, no. Mr McLagan said the Government was carrying on conversations at present attempting to do away with class distinction on the waterfront and aiming for more efficiency. Mr Sullivan: Just what does the Minister propose? Mr McLagan reiterated that exploratory talks were progressing. Mr P. Kearins (Government, Waimarino) said that while the watersiders were being blamed for the increasing costs of cargo handling, the country should be told that the watersiders received only one-third of the loading and unloading charges on produce. The other two-thirds went to stevedoring concerns and, according to authentic information, all'except two of the stevedoring companies were owned or controlled by one or more of the major shipping companies. There were only two independent stevedoring contractors in New Zealand, and even they worked under the direction of shipping companies or their agents, Mr Kearins said. All the stevedoring contractors did was to hire the labour and provide a few slings and nets to work the cargo, but they received twice as much as did the watersiders. Mr R. M. Algie (Opposition, Remuera) said the country would be disappointed that the Minister had resorted to personal tirades instead of taking the opportunity to explain many things which the public wished to know about. The Minister must realise he was now under the’fire of public attack. He had not previously been used to that. The waterfront problem would not be solved by dividing the country into two hostile camps.