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

WHARF CONTROL

"COSTLY FAILURE" THE COMMISSION SYSTEM (S.R.) WELLINGTON, Wednesday An Opposition amendment to reduce the Labour Department's vote by £1250 as an indication that' the Waterfront Control Commission should be abolished was moved by Mr A. J. Murdoch (Marsden) in the House of Representatives today when the Estimates were being discussed. He said the commission was not serving any useful purpose and the president of the watersiders' organisation, Mr H. Barnes, had described it as "a wharfie's control." Opposition members also asked why the commission's staff was not under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commissioner. Mr W. A. Bodkin (Opposition—Central Otago) criticised an item of £11,870 in the Estimates which, he said, represented a lump sum which Parliament was asked to hand over to the Waterfront Commission to spend on staff salaries and for other purposes, such as watersiders* recreation facilities _ and hospital comforts. This was a vicious | departure from Parliamentary practice. The House should have before it precise particulars of the purposes for which it was asked to vote money. Full Inquiry Advocated The opinion that the commission was one of the most costly failures ever foisted on the country was expressed by Mr A. S. Sutherland (Opposition— Hauraki). He said that, contrary to optimistic assurances by the Minister, commission control had not resulted in the quicker turn round of shipping, less working time lost, or reduced cargo handling coste. The House should be informed how the commission was getting past the Stabilisation Commission, because waterfront rates appeared to be continually adjusted upward. The time had come for an inquiry into the whole ramifications of commission control. Contention by Minister The Minister of Labour, Air Webb, replying, said the commission had been greatly abused throughout the country. In reality, however, it had done splendid work. It was never intended that the commission should be subject to the supervision of the Public Service Commissioner. Of the commission's 300 employees, only about eight, mainly typists, were under the jurisdiction of the Public Sendee Commissioner. The Opposition had nothing to complain about in the vote of £11,780, because the commission was one of the cheapest of such bodies in the country, considering that it handled about £5.000.000 worth of contracts annually, Mr Webb claimed that the work performed by the New Zealand waterside workers was an example to the whole world. There was less time lost here through waterfront" trouble than anywhere else, including Britain and the United States. Pay Without Working Mr G. H. Mackley (Opposition—Masterton) said the commission was overgenerous in the way it made payment for time not worked. Recently at a South Island port men were engaged for work on Saturday night and on Sunday, but, owing to an improvement in the weather, the work was completed in daylight hours on the Saturday. However, the'men were paid for four hours' work on Saturday night and all day Sunday, although they did no work at all. The shipping company concerned was involved in the payment of an extra £SOO. Mr Mackley continued. He thought that the men having been engaged were entitled perhaps to payment for Saturday night, but not for Sunday. More information should be given about the commission's activities. The Minister said the naval authorities considered that the information in the report of the commission should n6t be made available because it might he of use to the enemy. However, a report and balance-sheet were submitted to the Public Accounts Committee of the House. Mr Mackley: No such thing. The Minister: Will you say the whole of the information contained in the commission's report was not submitted? Mr Mackley: The only thing we had was the figure in the Estimates. The amendment was lost on the voices and the vote passed. BOROUGH ENGINEER HAMILTON APPOINTMENT (0.C.) HAMILTON, Wednesday The terms of the appointment of Mr J. R.. Baird to the position of superintending engineer to the Hamilton Borough were finally decided upon by the Borough Council tonight with the adoption of a report of the special committee appointed to interview Mr Baird. With the exception of one clause dealing with the wav in which Mr Baird's services should be utilised, the terms agreed upon were those originally formulated by the council. Mr R. Braitlnvaite, chairman of the committee, said that as Mr Baird had taken several long contracts in his capacity as a private consulting engineer, it was only reasonable that he should be permitted to complete these. He would not be allowed to accept any new business after his appointment as superintending engineer on November 1 ol this year. Until April, 1945, he would be available to the borough for two days a week, from then until July three days a week, and until October 1, four days weekly. His salary during these periods would bo commensurate with the time spent in service to the borough. This arrangement would give him time to fulfil all his previous contracts until he gave his full-time services to the borough. The Mayor, Mr H. D. Caro, said that although he could not under any circumstances vote for .the reinstatement of Mr Baird, the conditions laid down were entirely satisfactory to him as Mayor. When Mr Baird took up his position he was prepared to work with him as though there had been no disagreement. COMMISSIONS WON Advice has been received by Mr and Mrs W. S. Cook, of the Schoolhouse, Clevedon, that their son, Donald Cook, was_ granted a commission in the R.N.Z.A.F. in June. Later advice is that Pilot-Officer Cook is now a flyingofficer in a bomber squadron operating from Britain. Flying-Officer Cook completed his training in New Zealand in May, 1943, and went direct to Britain for service. He was educated at the Auckland Grammar School. He was particularly interested in the Young Farmers' Club movement, being secretary of the Clevedon Club while still at school. Advice has been received that War-rant-Officer R. L. G. Rogers, son of Captain L. A. G. Rogers, of Coonoor, India, has been promoted to a commission in the Second N.Z.E.F. in the Middle East. Second-Lieutenant Rogers was educated at Trent College. Derbyshire, England, and at the Auckland Grammar School. He left New Zealand in January, 1940, with the First Echelon. Warrant-Officer A. Craig, husband of Mrs M. Craig, of 4 Raumati Street, Remuera, has also been granted a commission in the Second N.Z.E.F. He is at present on service in Italy. SecondLieutenant Craig, joined the Army in September, 1942. He is a past chairman of the Auckland Junior Chamber of Commerce.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH19441012.2.56

Bibliographic details

New Zealand Herald, Volume 81, Issue 25022, 12 October 1944, Page 6

Word Count
1,092

WHARF CONTROL New Zealand Herald, Volume 81, Issue 25022, 12 October 1944, Page 6

WHARF CONTROL New Zealand Herald, Volume 81, Issue 25022, 12 October 1944, Page 6

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