‘NEGATION OF DEMOCRACY’: HARBOUR CONTROL

Greymouth Evening Star, 7 October 1948, Page 4

‘NEGATION OF DEMOCRACY’: HARBOUR CONTROL

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, Oct. (>.

The Harbour Amendment Bill was discussed in committee in the House of representatives tonight. The second reading debate on the Bill was taken some weeks ago, and the Bill has since been referred to the Local Bills Committee. Tonight Opposition speakers renewed their earlier objections to direct representation of waterfront industry workers on harbour boards. Mr S. W. Smith (Oppn, Hobson) said that it was clearly the wish of most of those who gave evidence to' the committee that harbour boards; should be elected on a democratic basis. He said that direct nomination of representatives of one section of workers was a negation of democracy and clearly has not been called for by the public.

“(■Jew Look” Policy

Mr T. C. Webb (Oppn, Rodney) said that the Bill was designed to help what he termed the Government's “new look” policy, as defined by the Minister of the Crown at New Plymouth—that, in order to remain in office, it had to cultivate and retain the support of the workers, whether the methods were in line with democratic principles or not. The Minister of Transport, Mr F. Hackett, answering references to his New Plymouth statement, said: “I will say on any platform, at any place

L in the Dominion, that any Government which has passed the beneficial > progressive legislation this Govern- ; ment has passed has one desire—to remain in power, and to continue with its programme, rather than capitulate to an unsympathetic Opposition.” Mr J. T. Watts (Oppn, St Albans) said that because the Government hoped to get the support of the militant unions, it had brought down a Bill which contained provisions contrary to the recommendations of some Government members. "R/T-i vi i zn £ Tv, 4-rwv’i n 1 A-rPnivc*

rhe Minister oi internal Attairs, Mr W. E. Parry, said that there was so wide a difference of opinion on the matters discussed by the Local Government Committee, that he had urged a compromise, rather than have the discussions break down. The recommendations were made as a basis for discussion only. Nothing would have been done unless there was some compromise and he was convinced that no great principle had been broken. Mr W. A. Bodkin (Oppn, Central Otago) said that the Minister’s explanation was the most amusing excuse that he had heard in the last 20 years in the House. A major consideration was that the Government ! should hold office at all costs. He said that the Bill was framed to place Communists on the waterfront because the Government would need their support at’ the next election. Mistaken Count The Acting-Prime Minister, Mr W. Nash then moved that the question be put on the short title. When the result of the division was announced, it showed that the closure was refused by 34 votes to 33 votes. There then were heard from the Opposition benches cries of “Hooray! Dissolve!” Shortly afterwards, however, the division lists were further scrutinised.. The voting was then found to be 34 to 34. | The Chairman of Committees Mr C. L, Carr then cast his vote with the «

Government, making it 35 to 34 for the closure.' A further division was taken on the short title, which was agreed to by 37 votes to 34 votes.