Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

WATERFRONT CONTROL

COMMISSION'S 1 (POWERS. ' OPPOSITION' CRITICISM. P.A. WELLINGTON, October 11. Discussion of the Estimates was resumed -by the House to-day, the first vote being £262,422 for the Department of Labour. Speaking to a grant of £11,870 to the Waterfront Control Commission, Mr. W. A. She.at (Nat., Patea), asked why the power of < appointing staff for the Commission had been taken out of the hands of the Public Service Commissioner and placed in the hands of the Commission itself. Mr. W. A. Bodkin (Not., Central Otago) said it was a vicious principle for Parliament to vote a lump sum to an outside body which was given a free hand in the spending of the money and in the employment of officers who were to be paid. It appeared a barefaced way of wiping out all rights of civil servants and of the Public Service Commissioner. No doubt, he said, the future appointments by the Commission would be purely political. Hon. P. C. Webb, in reply, said that only eight of those who were employed by the Commission were likely to come from the public service, and, even then, the nature of the work required that the workers should be specially selected. As a fact, it was agreed by the Public Service Commissioner that the Commission should select its own workers.

Mr. A. J. Murdoch (Nat., Marsden) moved the reduction of the vote by £1,250 as an indication that the Waterfront Control Commission should be abolished. This amendment was defeated on the voices. Mr. G. H. Mackley (Nat., Masterton), criticised what he termed “the over-generosity of the Waterfront Commission in meting out payment for time not worked.” He said there was a recent example from a South Island port. A shipping company was obliged to pay out £5OO for work not performed. He realised that the men were entitled to some reward if they were called back to work. He thought, however, that a minimum of four hours, as obtained in the Railways Department, was reasonable, but that payment for a whole Sunday, after reasonable notice had been given that men would not be required, was out of all reason. The vote was passed.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GRA19441012.2.14

Bibliographic details

Grey River Argus, 12 October 1944, Page 3

Word Count
363

WATERFRONT CONTROL Grey River Argus, 12 October 1944, Page 3

WATERFRONT CONTROL Grey River Argus, 12 October 1944, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert