Harbours Bill Passed Despite. Many Objections

Greymouth Evening Star, 8 October 1948, Page 3

Harbours Bill Passed Despite. Many Objections

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, October 7.

The Harbours Amendment Bill, provided for the appointment of representatives of waterfront workers to Harbour Boards was passed by the House of Representatives today. The Opposition, maintaining its objection to the non-elective principle, also asked for an assurance that Communists would not be appointed, but without success. There were several divisions while the House was in committee.

Mr J. N. Massey (Opposition, Franklin), when the discussion was resumed today, said the amendment before the House (to delete the provision for Government representatives on harbour board) was an important one, drawing attention as it did to a proposed change in elective system which had long been recognised in national and local government in New Zealand.

Harbour Board Objections

Mr C. G. Harker (Opposition, Hawke’s Bay) said he had received a telegram of protest from the Napier Harbour Board at the retention of the provision for non-elective members. Mr D. C. Kidd (Opposition, Waimate) said the Opposition did not take exception to worker representation on harbour boards provided they were elected in the constitutional way. The Timaru Harbour Board has asked him to oppose the clause and he asked the Minister to consider excluding the Timaru Harbour Board from that provision. Mr E. li. Neale (Opposition, Nelson) said, the Nelson Harbour Board was opposed to the clause. Mr E. P. ’ Aderman (Opposition, New Plymouth) said the New Plymouth Harbour Board made a protest and Mr D. M. Rae (Opposition, Parnell) entered a protest from the Auckland Harbour Board. A division was called for and the amendment was defeated by 38 votes to 33.

Mr W. H. Sheat (Opposition, Patea) moved a further amendment seeking to delete provision, for the representation on harbour boards of waterfront industry workers, the central proposal of the bill. He said that if his amendment were defeated there was a danger that leading Communists might be appointed to harbour boards on the nomination of waterfront workers. He asked the Minister of Marine (Mr F. Hackett) for an assurance that he would not be a party to appointment of any Communist or of any fellow traveller of the Communists to any harbour board. “Being Pushed Through” Mr K. J. Holyoake (Opposition' Pahiatua) said that if the Minister gave no such assurance it could be concluded he was not a free agent, and was unable to give the assurance asked for. The bill was being pushed through by the use of the party whip, although a majority of members had expressed their disagreement with the principle.

Mr Hackett said that when it was agreed to bring the bill forward in its present form the objective was more or less an experimental one, in the hope that the functioning of harbour boards could be improved by the appointment of experienced men.

Mr Sheat renewed his request for an assurance that no Communist would be appointed, and when the Minister made no reply, said the lack of an assurance indicated that the Minister reserved the right to appoint a Communist if he were ordered to do sc.

Balance of Representation

Mr Sheat’s amendment was defeated by 36 votes to 33.

A further amendment to the same clause was moved by Mr Massey. This provided that the number of nonelective members on harbour boards should not exceed the total number of representatives of payers of harbour dues, whether on ships or not. Mr Massey said the bill made provision for representation on boards of 31 Government nominees and 23 waterfront industry representatives and 13 payers of dues. The amendment was lost by 36 votes to 33, and a division on the clause itself was won by the same margin.

No division was taken when clause nine of the bill, providing for the setting up&of an appeal board to determine all appeals by employees of harbour boards and the Opposition’s protest against it was lost on the voices. An amendment by Mr R. M. Algie (Opposition, Remuera), which sought to reduce the waterfront industry representation. on the Auckland Harbour Board from three to two was withdrawn.

The bill was given a third reading against an Opposition protest on the voices, and .was passed.