GOOD WORK ON N.Z. WATERFRONT, SAYS MR McLAGAN

Grey River Argus, 12 October 1949, Page 5

GOOD WORK ON N.Z. WATERFRONT, SAYS MR McLAGAN

Reply to Opposition Talk of “Spelling” COMMISSION’S REPORT IN QUESTION

P.A. WELLINGTON, Oct 11. The annual report of the Waterfront Industry Commission was in the House of Representatives this afternoon, during a debate of the estimates under the control of tne Minister of Labour, Hon. A. McLagan An allegation was made by Mr W A. Sheat (Nat. Patea) that an original typed copy of the Commission’s report contained reference to contabled. He said that the report had been altered materially by someone to modify or tone down the commis sion’s criticism of the “spelling” system on the waterfront. The origina" report had contained refernce to considerable abuse of the spelling system but the word ‘‘considerable” had been altered to “an” in the printed report, which, he said, was a deliberate falsification of the original report adopted by the Waterfront Industry Commission.

Mr A. C. Baxter (Government Raglan): “You are wallowing in it now!”

Mr Sheat said that it was a serious matter that .a report should be altered in that way, and he wanted an explanation from the Minister, showing who had altered the report, and why.

The Minister of Labour denied that the report was altered. Mr McLagan said that a type-written report had been tabled to enable members to get the report in time. The typescript was the final draft of the report, and contained certain alterations, in which the Member for Patea, apparently saw something sinister. The Minister said that alterations were made by himself, in consultation with the Manager of the Waterfront Commission. It was entirely wrong to talk about an abuse of the spelling system in a report which no longer represented the position to-day.

The report was not signed by the members of the Commission until after the alterations were made, said the Minister. work of the waterfront is going on very well at present,” added the Minister. Mr A. S. Sutherland (Nat. Hauraki) said that the Minister should do two things. He should work on the waterfront under the Arbitration Court system and should stop “this closed Union business.’ Hon. Mr McLagan said that the improvements in the waterfront work recorded in the report were actual improvements, and that was what Mr Sutherland disliked.

Mr McLagan quoted the report extracts dealing with an improvement in the rate of cargo handling and in the turn-round of the ships. Opposition Members made a number of interjections. Mr J. J. Maher (Nat. Otaki) remarked: “Shipping companies dont’ say that.” Mr McLagan“lt is a fact, whatever the shipping companies say. Thej had to say something to support. their action in raising the freight rates!” Mr McLagan said that all of last season’s farm produce in store had been shipped, and, at times ships had had to wait tor cargo. The stores had been cleared of the export cargoes of butter, meat, and cheese, and there had been instances in the 'shipping of cargoes of having to put general cargo in the refrigerated space, because there was not sufficient frozen cargo available. The work on the waterfront was going better than for a long time, and the record did not show that the Commission system had been a failure. Some individual commissions might have been failures but the system had been a major success, and it would continue to'give results, given good wffl and sincerity on the part of those associated with it. Waterfront harmony was not benig promoted by the daily vociferous criticisms of some critics.

Mr F. Langstone (Ind. Lab. Roskill) said that every opportunity was taken in the House to attack decent working men on the waterfront, in the mines, and elsewhere. Watersiders worked as intelligently as any other group. There were many handicaps to the quid; handling of cargo for which the watersiders were not to blame. If a double shift were to be worked, carriers, merchants and others would also have to work double shifts. Would they be prepared to do so? Mr McLagan: “The answer is no.” Mr McLagan, in further references to the rate of cargo working, said that congestion in the wharf stores and in the railway goods sheds and a shortage of railway waggons had all slowed down the rate of cargo working. Members opposite coveniently forgot that accidents caused greater lojses of lime on the waterfront than stoppages. Mr McLagan said that he was consistently trying to reduce the loss of working time, both from stoppages and from accidents, the latter o r which cost 600,000 working hours last year. But the Opposition were not concerned with reducing the causes' of accidents.

Mr W. S. Goosman (Nat. Piako) claimed that the report as printed, was not the report of the Commission but was a report dictated by the Minister. Members of the Commission were • not fo bllime for 1 any alteration, as they were at the mercy of the Minister’s dictatorship. It was a matter for concern that it was not the Commission but the Minister who actually controlled the waterfront, no asserted.

He asked was there not a small minor!! v of men on the waterfront who had dictated to the Minister. Mr W. Sullivan (Nat. Bay of Plenty) said it was nonsense to say that the Opposition wanted to pick a bone with the watersiders. How did the Minister think he could get peace on the waterfront while Messrs Barnes and Hill were going throughout New Zealand and opposing everyth : ,ng that the Minister sought to do? What was the good of the House trying to shut its eyes to what those two men were doing? Mr McLagan said that this talk of dictatorship of the report was absurd

When he had pointed our to the Commission that its report could be made more accurate, the Commission had unanimously agreed, and the report was, with their concurrence, altered accordingly. The Minister said that he was satisfied with the position which obtained at a great many of the ports, and the great majority of the work-: ers had confidence in him to give them a fair deal.

“Let them take a ballot of their own members and we’ll see what the result is,” said Mr McLagan. “Some of them will get a surprise.” Mr S. G. Holland (Nat. Fendalton): “Why don’t you conduct a ballot?” Mr McLagan said that it was easily for a ballot of that kind to be sabotaged by getting a motion carried declaring the ballot black, and by putting men on to watch. There was added the Minister, a ballot coming along that could not be avoided, and that was the Union’s bi-ennial election of officers. The result of that ballot could be most interesting, and no one would be able to influence the results. It was a secret ballot. The vote was passed.