A WATERSIDE PROBLEM

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIII, Issue 9955, 26 April 1918, Page 2

A WATERSIDE PROBLEM

HARBRUR-.BOARP.. AND CONTROL OF LABOUR

QUESTIONS OP FRANCHISE AND LABOUR. REPRESENTATION. .

At the meeting of the Harbour Board on Wednesday night, the chairman moved the adoption of the recommendation of the special committee re employment of labour on the.. waterfront as follows : . .. . - , ,

(1) To.approach'-the.Government with a request taat the q Harbours - Act. ~be. amended in such a manlier as to empower harbour boards to employ, control, and manage aii labour required in tho loading ana unloading of snips and waterside work generally, whether On the wharves or on vessels. (2) 'That it is desirable to abolish all special representation in the constitution of .harbour boards, and that the Government be requested to amend the Harbours Act in this direction, all members of boards ,to be elected on the Parliamentary suffrage basis. The motion was seconded by Mr Cohen. Speaking in support of the motion the chairman said that the special committee had. mot on several occasions and had gone into the matter thoroughly, but it would bo labour in vain to evolve a definite scheme until the necessary powers had been obtained through legislation. ' ' ’, Mr Harkness thought that the committee should have produced a scheme first to submit to tho Government. He considered that the board' 'had ' not a sufficient grip of, -the labour conditions, to justify tneir taking over, complete control of waterfront labour. He believed it was taking a lean in the dark. Mr Harkness instanced serious delay in the transhipping of salt to Gisborne, the blame for which he attributed to the Fletcher ’spoke in -favour-of the motion, and doubted‘'Whether- - the _ mstance of delay quoted bv previous speaker ‘could be tho board. He believed in getting . the’ power first and evolving the- scUeme.- aiterwards. Tnere would not- be any revolutionary change in the personnel. The' same men as at present would control the loading and unloading of vessels 1 . ", : , tem, and earnestly advocated the adoption' of the resolution.--:- -, , ' , j■ „x Mr MoEwan said-, that, -the board at present controls at least a third, ot tne labour on the wateriront; and their experience, should, justify the board taking over control of ,ali , tiro , labour. Tne shipping interests had too big a say tor the good of'the cdminuuity' in general... if the tpowei--.was-granted,;the committee Would revolve... a,.;-jnost satisfactory scheme. ,—... , ... • . Mr Wallis thought they would not meet' with success n they appro-aefied the Government unless a scheme were ■ submitted. " "a " r. '■ . Mr Cohen ..said i.t was not-easy to formulate a scheme that would fulfil the expectations td*"the" board. ■ • It' might take'months'and : it Would be fume to proceed 'further without the necessary pow ; er.' , ''' ! ' l The'coiuinittfie liad 'every reason- to know-that -this Authority: was in overv-way odesirabie-efirstv.. ■ ■ ; . The chairman.,reduted-.referenoas by .Mr Harkness as. to the efficient control of labour in., tho chebse r ,storo. They had got better’results'from labour than the shipping''companies'.-’ ■ Fof- * ihsfarce the board had -provided- a;ooal "grab”, at o cost of £2OOO--that—would-handle coal at half the'cost by man-power, yet the shipping companies' were •mot using tho ’’grab - .”';" The ‘menvhad taken: up the stand’ that:: ns-cthe "grab" meant a considerable saving to the shipping companies the men should have some of the 'profit.'’ While 'some men 'were not giving fair value -they' had as loyal men on the wharf-as -anywhere. " r■* ' • The motion was; put and carried by eleven votes to three, the noes being Captain McArthur, Messrs Harkness and' Wallis. •' '- ’ ’

The chairman-next-moved-the adoption of paragraph. 2 of. the same special committee’s recommendation, as follows :

"That it is desirable to abolish all special representation in the constitution of harbour boards and that the-Govern-ent be requested to.amend the .Harbours Act In this direction. , all .members of boards to bo elected on. the' Farliamentarv suffrage basis.”

Mr Harkness, rose to a point of order. and contended that the latter recommendation did not come within ■ the order of .procedure ,of .tho special committee. . This was,,,rilled, out by the chairman. ~ 1( , ; . In speaking to the ’ motion, the chairman said that labour 'claimed direct representation on the' board,' but'ho contended that the board should- be, a citizens’ body, representative in the broadest sense. Mr Fletcher contended that the - only fair system of representation should be on the Parliamentary franchise basis, and. failing that, on the municipal basis. The proportion of representatives, -the - shipowners had on the board as compared with the 35,000 .voters in Wellington was preposterous. ' Under thepresent system waterside labour had a perfect right to have special representation. The Government had not a n atom of interest in;the board, yet they sent a representative there. He hoped to eliminate the Government representative. ’ Mr Cobbe moved to add two direct representatives of waterside labour on tho Board, as it is at present constituted, failing success of the proposed resolution. „ ■ , Mr Hindmarah • roundly condemned the system which enabled the Government to have a special representative on the board. The representative was not appointed necessarily because' ho was' efficient, but through potty patronage. The chairman ruled that Mr Cohibo’s motion be dealt with after tho motion in the report. iMr Harkness claimed tihat -the Harbour Board should include a Government representative, as' they cdfiild not reclaim a foot of land"without' Government consent, and the notions of tho -board were frequently, controlled by the Minister for Marine. The second clause of the committee’s recommendation was carried on the voices, with a few dissentients. Mr Cobbo’s motion, which was 6oconc(od by Mr MoEtwan, was, then broughtforward. ...... ... Mr Hind.tnarsh added an amendment that the wat6fsia , or3 u shdtlld have four special represftilttrtivos,. but this was lost on, the voices. ■ .... ....

■Mr Oobbe's motion. was put and lost by nine votes ■ to .' five, the' .ayes being Captain McArthur, Cobbe, Handmarsh, McEwan. and, Wallis-