WATERSIDE INDUSTRY NOMINEES OPPOSED: SCATHING CRITICISM

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 22698, 24 July 1948, Page 3

WATERSIDE INDUSTRY NOMINEES OPPOSED: SCATHING CRITICISM

HARBOURS’ BILL DEBATE

( P R ) WELLINGTON, July 24. Scathino- criticism by Opposition members of the provision to include representatives of the waterside industry on harbour boards was the main feature of the debate during the second reading of the Harbours Amendment Bill yesterday.

i The adjournment interrupted the debate at 5.30 p.m. i -How can any Government member be a party to legislation such as this | and say that he stands for the prini ciples of democracy?” asked Mr. D. C. ‘Kidd (Oppos., Waimate). No bill that would be introduced would be more unpopular than the Harbours 1 Amendment Bill, he added. If the Government could not get representatives on by the democratic way, they | were going to take ways and means of ' pushing them in through the back door. Government Members’ Attitude ! The Select Committee on Local Gov- ’ eminent which had been set up in 1914 ihad done a good job and the recorn- ! mendations of its report should be adopted, he contended. | He would be very interested to see | how the eight members of the Gov- ! eminent who sat on that committee j would vole on tire bill. Every mem--1 her of the Opposition would be against the bill which was right against democratic principles, said Mr. Kidd, j -Other clauses in this bill are just camouflage to Clause 2,’ said Mr. W. H. Gillespie tOppos.. Hurunui), who also contended that the object of the bill was to get more Labour representatives on harbour boards by undemocratic means without the necessity of securing votes. He said that the Local Government Committee on which he served had cast aside party politics and had reached unanimous decisions. That committee had recommended that no sectional interests, such as represented by shipowners or farmers, should be on harbour boards unless elected, and this principle held good for the waterside workers. The principle which the bill was introducing was entirely wrong. . Mr. A. E. Armstrong (Govt., Napier) suggested that the inclusion of practical men on the harbour boards of the country would be of great benefit to those bodies. “Failed to Carry Out Duty” If there was any one section of the community which had demonstrated that u had failed to carry out its duty, said Mr. J. J. Maher (Oppos., Olaki), it was the section which worked on the waterfront. there snould be something in the bill to take away some of the privileges they already possessed. The reason for the legislation was more appeasement by the Government, which would probably go down in history as the “appeasement Government,” said Mr. W. S. Goosman (Oppos., Piako). By their votes in the past people had shown that they did not want this legislation. When Mr. Goosman was criticising the waterside workers, Mr. P. G. Connolly (Govt.. Dunedin Central) said: Half of them fought lor the honourable gentleman. Mr. Goosman: All honour to them. I wish tney were fighting harder for Britain today.

Mr. Connolly said that on sucii an important subject what was wanted was more light and less heat. Mr. J. R. Hanan (Oppos., Invercargill) said that there was nothing in the bill to rationalise the carrying of goods by sea. He urged the proper development of minor ports and said that while the Government and payers of dues had representation on harbour boards, he considered that the waterfront industry had every right to press for representation. On the other nand, while he was a member of the Bluif Harbour Board there was always a representative of the watersiders on the board and he was elected by the people. Farmers Should Be Represented Mr. Hanan added that if the watersiders were going to get special representation, it could not be denied to producers who provided the cargo. He intended to oppose the bill. Mr. T. E. Skinner (Govt., Tamaki) said there were 12 maritime unions and 10,000 employees in Auckland, but the watersiders numbered 2000, so that numerically they were in the minority and there was no guarantee that any member of their union would be selected for appointment on the Harbour Board.

the person recommended was highly respected, the Minister of Marine had ignored him and had appointed the local secretary ox the Labour Party. Mr. D. W. Coleman (Govt., Gisborne): He was the best man. Transport Operators’ Position If the waterfront industries were entitled to representation, was not the Government conscious of transport operators? asked Mr. Sullivan. II worker control was started the railways should be included to see if the workers could run them better than the Minister had, and if they could cut out the loss. The Minister ot Mines should also try worker control in the mines. . “All we know is that it is not the average man on the waterfront in Auckland who is causing this trouble, said Mr. Sullivan. "it is militant leaders.” The militant leaders were the ones holding up the work, and they were the ones who would be appointed to harbour boards. Mr. A. J. Murdoch (Oppos., Marsden) said it. seemed to him quite ludicrous that the men who were causing trouble on the waterfront were now sitting in judgment on themselves. If the Government would withdraw Clause 2 of the bill it would be unanimously passed. „ , . Mr. W. A. Bodkin (Oppos., Central Otago ) pointed out that if the waterside employees were appointed to harbour boards, which would be the governing local bodies, Government servants should be eligible to be appointed to Parliament. A strong Government was wanted which would govern in accordance with the law. Everyone in the country wished to have harmony on the wharves. Any waterside worker who could help in solving problems would be welcome on a harbour board -if he veic elected democratically. Mr. C. G. G. Barker (Oppos., Hawke’s Bay) also deplored the policy of appeasement. He did think, however, that there was a case for Government representation on certain local bodies where Government money was being expended.

It was suggested by Mr. W. Sullivan (Oppos., Hay of Plenty! that as there had been no demand lor special representation the provision in the bill was part of the Government’s policy. It was in line with the "gerrymandering” of the electoral law so that the Labour Party could profit. The acting-Speaker. Mr. Clyde Carr (Govt., Timaru) called on the member to withdraw what was equivalent to a direct charge of dishonesty and malpractice on the part of the Government.

Mr. Sullivan complied, but he said that he had the firm beliif that the electoral laws had been altered for the Government’s benefit. Who, he asked, would get nomination as representing the waterside workers? He had local experience of sending forward a name after consulting a county council but, although