MOVE FOR DISCUSSION.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVIII, Issue 10, 9 December 1937, Page 13

MOVE FOR DISCUSSION.

ATTEMPT TO PREVENT IT. “NOT AN URGENT QUESTION.” Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Dee. 8. In the House of Representatives today Mr W. J. Poison moved the adjournment of the House in order to discuss the position on the waterfront in Auckland. A Jengtliy discussion then arose on a point of order moved by the Minister of Education (Hon. P. Eraser) who submitted that Mr Poison’s motion did not conform to Standing Orders. In the first place, the hold-up at Auckland had been settled, and secondly, there was now no question of urgency in the Auckland dispute, as no such dispute now existed.

lit. Hon. J. G. Coates asked if the position would be much altered as a result of the settlement of the Auckland dispute. The whole question of transport of our produce overseas was concerned, and that at all times was a matter of urgent public concern. The Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. M. J. Savage) drew attention to the fact that Mr Poison’s motion applied only to the position at Auckland, and not to the rest of the Dominion. The Auckland dispute did not exist now and the privilege required in Mr Poison’s motion for an adjournment of the House applied only to urgent questions such as might arise, say, from a declaration of war, etc., but if the House could discuss under such a motion questions, say, relating to banking or industrial business, the Government of the country would soon be in a chaotic state and they would never be able to get any business done by the House at all.

The debate on the point of order was continued by Mr W. A. Bodkin, the Attorney-General (Hon. H. G. R. Mason), Hon. W. E. Parry, Messrs W. J. Broadfoot, S. G. Smith and W. P. Endean, the last-named stating lie would get a better run in the Supreme Court than in the House. The Speaker (Hon. W. E. Barnard) called him to order and asked him to state what he meant In liis statement. Was it a reflection on the Chair or the House?

On the Speaker’s request, Mr Endean withdrew the remark.

The Speaker, giving a ruling on the point of order raised by Mr Fraser, said he was placed in a position of considerable difficulty, but he felt he would not be justified at present in ruling that Mr Poison’s motion should not proceed. In reply to a request by Mr Fraser, he also ruled that the scope of the debate on the motion must be limited to Auckland and not cover the entire position on the waterfront throughout the whole of the Dominion. VERY SERIOUS SUBJECT.

Mr Poison, speaking to his motion, said the question was a very serious one. A demand had been made by the primary producers for an investigation into the question of hold-ups on the waterfront but it had not been comElied with. Such delays caused the old-up of the shipment of primary produce, with consequent loss to the producer. The trouble in Auckland was a culmination of many acts throughout New Zealand which had tended to raise waterfront costs. Auckland was the worst port in New Zealand as far as they were concerned. They were double the costs in Australian ports. In giving his reason for his action, Mr Poison said 24 vessels were lying idle and the loss to the shipping companies was causing a further burden on the community. The dismissal of employees of carrying firms owing to inability to obtain goods from the ships’ sides, and the dislocation of business by reason of the hold-up of goods urgently required for the Christmas and New Year trade, had also to be taken into consideration. There was the serious possibility that such occurrences would occasion the disorganisation of the conveyance of pri unary products for the world’s markets. Mr Poison mentioned that the holdup in wool shipments meant" the rejection of further consignments owing to wool store accommodation being overtaxed. Delays in shipment of dairy produce, frozen mutton and lamb, and chilled and frozen beef, would result in heavy losses to tlie producers. All the freezing space in Auckland was becoming rapidly, congested to such an extent that goods might soon have to be refused storage by dairy factories and freezing works. He stressed the necessity for an immediate inquiry into the circumstances leading to the hold-up in the waterfront work. The agreement under which work was carried out on the waterfront was made by °a committee on which there was equal representation of employer and employee. It had the full force of an award of the Arbitration Court. The men were not subjected to any penalty for holding up the work in Auckland beyond the loss of wages they would have received had the vessels been worked. The Government, lie declared, had not settled the strike, but had handed over negotiations to Mr J. E. Roberts, president of the New Zealand Labour Federation. Mr Poison said he wanted to know who was to govern the country, the Trades and Labour Council or members on the Labour benches of Parliament. He added that all that he wanted was to keep the industry running smoothly and fair play. There had been no fair play on the waterfront at Auckland in the past few days. The Government should take the job in hand and by asserting its authority, establish permanent peace. MINISTER CRITICISES MEN. The Minister of Labour (Hon. H. T. Armstrong) assured the House that the Government was anxious to maintain industrial peace and would follow constitutional means to achieve it. It believed arrangements between employ-, ers and employees should be faithfully

kept, and it was the business of his department to see they were kept. He then outlined the history of the dispute at Auckland and said that as soon as the Government was notified of what was taking place, it took every possible step to bring the parties together. There had been a lot of talk about losses suffered by farmers and merchants as a result of the action of the men, but in effect the actual delay . caused to shipping only lasted three or four hours. Wet weather during the remainder oi the time of the dispute would have prevented the loading of the ships in any case. Mr Armstrong said lie was not attempting to justify the action of the men. He had never been an advocate of strikes when there was a reasonable chance of settling disputes through fair and constitutional procedure, and there was less justification for stoppages 'of work in New Zealand because of our industrial laws than in any other part of the world. The Minister criticised the actions of sections of the workers who were not prepared to accept the decisions of the Court or of their leaders, but who were constantly causing trouble in industry. These men were betrayers of the trade union movement, and they should be expelled from the organisations _ m which they had been given tile privilege and benefit of membership. They were not playing the game with the Government and with their fellow unionists in other parts of the country, and their actions were designed to wreck trades unionism. He took a serious view of the position and appealed to the unions for co-operation in combating a danger. All the Government asked for in the interests oi industrial peace - and benefit of the country and trades union movement was for employer and employee to play the game by each other and by the State. . The Minister of Education (Mr P. Fraser) said the dispute had been settled with more expedition than any similar dispute, mainly because of the promptitude of the Government and the Minister of Labour. Wholesale condemnation of the men on the Auckland waterfront was not justified. If any section of men were responsible it was that section that realised to take up work on Friday evening. WHAT OF THE FUTURE?

'Mr Coates said it was unfortunate the hold-up had occurred, and now it was over the minds of the people were exercised as to the future. He stressed the increases in the cost of waterfront work and said the hold-up had been a serious matter for both the producing and business community. The Prime Minister said the Opposition’s claims had been mostly political, and to blame the shipping companies or waterside workers was not to solve the problem. They had to clear Up the position, and there should he intelligence enough among them to see that things worked more smoothly in future. . The Government was _ not going to fun away from its responsibilities in the matter. Mr W. A. Bodkin contended that

a serious aspect of the matter was that the union had stood four square behind the men who had defaulted and there could be no solution of the problem until there was a “showdown” between the watersiders and the Government, The Minister of Mines (Hon. P. C. Webb) said that if the dispute had lasted any longer, further action would have been taken and those responsible brought to book. The Minister of Finance (Hon. W. Nash) said he hoped some better agreement would be reached between the shipowners and watersiders in future so that both parties would co-operate to see that ships were loaded and got away at the proper time. It was an important matter for the Government, because the Government was now a large shipper of produce. _ He considered there was justification for an inquiry, and hoped information would be secured that would enable them to remove the difficulties that had caused the trouble. The debate was iiiterimpted by the adjournment at 5.30.