The New Zealand Times. SATURDAY, MARCH 12, 1921. THE WATERSIDE PROBLEM

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10847, 12 March 1921, Page 6

The New Zealand Times. SATURDAY, MARCH 12, 1921. THE WATERSIDE PROBLEM

The disturbance is over, ]but the 1 waterside problem remains unsolved. The trouble was part of the disturbing element which sometimes sleeps and sometimes becomes acutely alive, but is always present. When it arose to its greatest height, nobody dared to say it would riot go hfgher, and many were afraid that it might paralyse the whole business of the Dominion. Some of the latter even professed to - have visions of civil war. This unpleasant stage is over, and work is proceeding on the wharves with energy, and something more like satisfaction all round than the wharf situation has for a long time presented. That is satisfactory so far as it goes. But as on a fine day after a storm one does not feel happy unless there are signs of some continuance of serenity in the atmosphere, so in the midst of this restored normality on the wharves one looks for some justification for the hope of its continuance. But, so long as the terms of the settlement are undivulged, no one can see any such justification. The watersiders broke the agreement, and the employers wanted a guarantee that another breach would not startle the atmosphere with the suddenness of a bolt out of the blue. As these facts and the resumption comprise all the knowledge the public has of the situation, the general satisfaction that the trouble is over is, naturally, not quite what it ought to be. The end of the trouble is a very satisfactory thing, of course. Nevertheless, the fact- is prominent that secret diplomacy is not a sound basis of permanent satisfaction. Attention has naturally. been' drawn by the recent trouble to the system controlling the work on the waterside. Upon this subject there has been much discussion in the columns of the Press, in the streets, and by one public body. The Wellington Harbour Board contributed that discussion, and its discussion is the most informative of all. It showed the public that an attempt has been made to alter the system on principles generally recognised ; that the chief difficulty is to obtairi'this general recognition of principle; that the members of the HarIwur Board, while agreeing that the system of wharf control might be better, are radically, and apparently irreconcilably, divided about the betterment. The conclusion suggested by the discussion in the Harbour Board is that, owing to division of authority, there is more friction than is proper in an administration which ought to deal justly by all the interests involved, which professes to attain that end, and sometimes even insists that it has succeeded.

Under the circumstances, the question suggests itself whether any guarantee whatever can he effective for the maintenance of the peace vital to the general interest of commerce, so long as the system of control remains as it is. The system comprises a chief public representative authority, a combination of private interests, and a lack of completeness in the representative principle. The chief authority, which is responsible for the construction- and the control of the waterways, is, to a large extent, powerless in the working of the wharves. The combination of private interests, which rules most of the control, is unable to avoid with the labour interest, which has no repreeentation on the control. The public fears that all disputes arising in consequence may end. always, in fact systematically, in increased demands on its pocket. There is some machinery for settling disputes, and it is chiefly remarkable for breaking down whenever any dispute occurs. Obviously, the system is loose, disjointed, unprincipled. If a new port .and new wharves suddenly appeared, and a system of control had to be devised over the wharves, it may be taken as quite certain that no system that any reasonable man would devise could be as futile as the system actually in vogue. Two ■ things about the system are certain. One is that the system, bad as it is, will never be altered by the men who work it ; the other that it must, in the interests of good work, which is vital to commercial success, be altered. It is a case for settlement by the Legislature, because under "the system no guarantee of peace can ever he dependable.