LEGISLATURE IN SESSION

New Zealand Times, Volume LII, Issue 12252, 25 September 1925, Page 11

LEGISLATURE IN SESSION

THE TROUBLE IN THE STATE COAL MINES CAUSE OF THEIR BEING IDLE REPORT OF THE LYSNAR COMMISSION DISCUSSED

In the House of Representatives, yesterday afternoon, Mr H. E. Holland (Leader of the Labour Party) made reference to the trouble in the State coalmines, and alleged that the cause of the trouble was a lack of tact on the part of the superintendent. Mr Holland said he thought it was known to most of the members that just now the State mines were idle. He did not know if the Minister had 'had the matter fixed up yet. The Hon. Mr Anderson: Just on the verge.

Mr Holland : I don't want to do anything to prevent it. Mr Holland said the system of timbering mines had been under consideration for years, and had worked well; and then the management had come to a decision to change the system. But instead of using the machinery provided by his agreement, the superintendent had forced matters. Very often it had been said that the men failed to use the tribunal provided, but in this case it was the management who failed to do »o. Surely the least that could have been expected of tho management was that the agreement would have been honoured. The balance-sheet showed that over a period of years the State mines had been a profitable undertaking, and he thought it could also be shown that the men had increased their output. He thought the time had come when there should be a change in the management. He thought that the Minister would be justified in saying that unless more tact and judgment could be brought to bear in the running of the mines, to make thiugs go more smoothly, it was time to make a change. Most of the trouble in the State mines was due to lack of tact on the part of the superintendent. “I make the definite charge/ 4 said Mr Rolland. “'that the stoppage of work is due to the lack of tact on the part of the superintendent, his failure to take advantage of the clauses in the agreement relating to disputes ” TALK OF PINPRICKING Mr J. O'Brien (Westland) said it was a great pity there were these stoppages of work at. the State mines, and a great, pity there was so little tact on the part of some of those whose duty it was to see that the mines were worked to their fullest capacity for the benefit of the people*. There was no doubt that trouble could have been avoided by the use of tact. The miners thought the change in the system was a danger to their live®, and if the dispute had been handled properly it would have been referred to the disputed committee. There' was a time when the State mines worked for a considerable period without any serious stoppage, and that was because tact was employed. When there were officials trying to 1 bulldoze and bully men, particularly .men who were working under wretched conditions, there was going to be trouble; Seemingly, in the present case the only way the men could protect themselves was to ceaSe work. He hoped the* Minister would see that these pin-prickings did not continue, and that the officials used a little more tact than >hey had used recently. THE MINISTER’S ATTITUDE The Minister for Mines, the Hon. G. J. Anderson, said that as far a s he knew the management of the mine was out in the interests of the State and the safety of the miners. As to how the dispute respecting the timbering arose, there had been one or two accidents, as a result of the sets and at the inquest on the last victim the miners' check inspector agreed that if there had been & prop instead of a Get the man would not nave been .killed* but would have been able to get away. Mr 1 Holland: You know what the representative said Mr Anderson said the opinion of the check inspector was in accordance" with the inspectors' opinion, the mine managers' opinion and the opinion of men quite outside the State employ. It was contended, that there was more danger in certain cases with sets than with props, and in one or two cases the management decided to use sets instead of props, atid instead of the matter being referred to the disputes committee the men went out.

Mr didn't.-the-manage-ment refer it to the riisp.nates- committee, seeing that' they made .the change? Mr Anderson: The men could have referred it to the disputes committee. There was no dispute till the men struck. 'Mr Hollandr The matter went on for four months. Mr Anderson: There is no use arguing 3s- to who is right or wrong.-. We are oihg our level best to fix it up. It might be .fixed up now, but if not the V uder-Secretary will go down there. As thohonourable gentleman knows I’ could not- possibly tro down. M 4; Holland: I think the Undersecretary will be able to fix it up. REPORT OF LYSNAR COMMISSION The Minister for Agriculture (Mr W. Nusworthy) moved to have the report of the. commission on the sale of the Poverty Bay Freezing Works to Vesty Bros, referred to the Government for Consideration. ,

Mr Lysnar ('Gisborne) spoke on ..the report for an hour and a half, and during his speech suffered frequent facetious interruptions from the Labour benches, and occasional pretests from the Minister. Mr Lysnar began by declaring that the object of the commission had not been ; served, inasmuch as the chief issue—the richt of trusts to operate within the Domionon—had been disregarded- He had intended to move a resolution to the effect that, in view of the comraijwion’s acknowledgment that it had not dealt with the question as to whether trusts should or should not operate in New Zealand. whether Vesty's should be permitted to own freezing works here; that it Was not prepared to say that the policy of the, Meat Board had been wrong on this subject; and that it did not feel qualified to express an opinion as to tho best policy; the House should dirihpprove of the report and refer it back to the Government for further consideration/«o that remedial legislation may be enacted to prevent that and other trusts that were inimical to the public interest from operating in New Zealand. On account of the Minister moving his resolution, however, the same purpose had been served. “WHITEWASHING” ALLEGED Mr Lysnar assured the House that he did not ask for the Royal Commision otf the matter, but this hnd been the result of a statement by the Government in the House. The time of the commission had seen wasted, because the report was pure'y a "whitewashing" one, and was conteed to many matters of irrelevant derail "The findings," he said, “are con:rary to fact and against the weight of evidence, for the Commissioners have* 1 seized on small matters and magnified them and tried to justify the report. It is not the matters in the reference which have been on trial, but myself. The report lay* itself out to attack me in every direction." The- tentacles of trnsts wore becoming tighter and tighter on tho freezing industry of New Zealand, and if something were not done within a year or two, disaster would follow. 'Hie Minister for Agriculture had acted alone in this matter.

Tho Minister: Yon know T did nothing without the consent of Cabinet.

Mr lysnar: That was not borne out by the evidence—and your own evidence. Mr A. L. Monteith (Wellington Bast): How they love onp another! Mr Lysnar continued that the Minister had tried to divert the responsibility on to the local body handling the license for the freezing works. The Minister: You are most unfair. You know I only complied with the law. ATTACK ON MEAT BOAkD Mr Lvsnar said he did not wish to be unfair, but continued to attack the Minister. and then voiced a protest to the personnel of the Commission, at least two of whom should have been retired—in fact I 'they were retired. • The Minister for Lands: That's where you will be soon. Mr Lysnar, after further reference to tho Commission and the Minister, turned to speak of Mr Jones, chairman of tho Meat Board, and said that although he welcomed the Meat Board, if it was not guarding the interests of the people, and tf it was operating in the big interests, the'sooner it were abolished the better. The chairman of the board had not been consistent in the matter of the sale to. Vestv's of the'Poverty 'Bay Works, while the Commission bajl openly admitted having disregarded the general question of tho sale to Vesty's. The steamer Admiral Codrington should not have been excluded, as the Meat Board bad been asked that the vessel should be kept for the New Zealand trade. Bv it« exclusion, the shareholders, numbering 530, bad been deprived of the means of gettipg away their own produce The board had, however, acted to please the big interest. - The ship had cost .£400.000, of 'which. <£900,000 had'been* paid. But it was still being worked by the shareholders to-day

COULD NOT GIVE IT AWAY The Minister: Yon cannot give it away. Mr Lysnar ? You cannot give Shipping away to-day—jnst the same ae soldiers' farms and other things.--The member fop Gisborne dealt at length with the report, and alleged that certain portions which he wished to have elucidated, were omitted.. He- had. personally spoken for S \ days at the be-" ginning and 5 days 'at the. end, v of the sitting. } Mr P. Fraser (Wellington Central): Your remarks were brief. (Laughter.) Air Lysnar strongly refuted the suggestion that be had exercised political influence in the matter, and challeged the Minister on this point. The Minister.:. J know what you told pie at Gisborne. Qh ;‘ I will talk to you in a minute. Mr Monteith; Then there will be dirty work at the crossroads. AN UNEASY FEELING The Leader of the Opposition. Mr G. Forbes, said the whole of the investigation seemed to be in connection with the affairs of the member for Gisborne and the companies he was interested in. The broader question was not in 'the order of reference, and under the circumstances the commission was very expensive. The encroachment of the big vested interests was causing an uneasy feeling, and the commission had not cleared that question up. He suggested that the cost of the commission could only he justified bad the investigation gone into the question of the meat trust. It was. however. confined to the smaller issues. There was, he said, a slackness in allowing Vesty's to get this additional license. The country was interested only in the larger issues and the fact remained that one of the biggest trusts was at present operating in New Zealand. No country could afford to disregard the operations of trusts. The isaua; had degenerated into a wrangle between the Mimatei&and (he member for Gisborne. "XXXSSH: 'OPERATING”'

’ Mr Allan Bell said he was not concerned in the dispute between the Minister and the member for Gisborne. If the Minister had made a mistake it had been an honest one. He had proved himself in all the dealings he (Mr Bell) had had with him an honest Minister. Mr Bell went on on the generaL question of trusts, which riie^-generally , condemned. Baid;;dyfd"tnready acted to the detiibent. of freemhg works that had been built in the far-north atr a cost of between ,£150,000 and ,£160,000. The banking trust and the shipping trust he also condemned. There was no use blinking the fact that, trusts were operating in New Zealand, and there should be an investigation into them. He knew that the Minister for Agriculture and the Prime Minister were aleo strongly opposed to the trusts. The investigation should be an--Empire, movement in which all the Governments of the Empire should take part.. “A COLOURLESS MOTION”

Mr Holland hoped that the issue .would not be made the subject of a protracted debate. They all understood that Mr : Lysnar- was going to' condemn' the .Government and to move an amendment against it, but now the bombshell had proved a dud Mr Lysnar had backed down from his original intention, Mr Lysnar: I'll ’get' saine result now from the Minister's motion. Mr Holland reported 1 that’that was only a colourless, motion,. If the charges made by Mr Lysnar against the Minister, were true then 1 the Minister was . not fit to sit in that House.

A Government supporter.: Hear, hear. If the Minister lyas ’ guilty then the Government was equally guilty. The report was against Mr Lysnar. That was all right as far as it went, but the Government's sincerity would he tested,by its attitude to the member.for- Gisborne whether or not he would - be their • candidate for Gisborne. NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK Mr H. Atmore (Nelson) declared that the attack upon the Minister for Agriculture was not of a personal nature, was directed against a change of policy on the part of the Minister in respect to the operation in New -Zealand of trusts. He believed that Mr Lysnar had not secured a fair inquiry oil the matters affected by the commission. Certainly the attitude of the Government on. the question of trusts had changed during the past few years, and for this Mr Atmore sought explanation. He supported Mr Lysnar in his allegations, and. s said the member for Gisborne had been deliberately blocked in ' giving evidence which, even to a layman, was vital to the qnestion. "It was a clever lawyer's trick," he said; "to make him appear as an inconsistent man; while he was trying to save the country* from this trust.-He was put on trial and £3OOO was wasted on the commission.” “HOT Alß** The Hon. Mr McLeod said it was obvious that there wAs.a.gOod deal Of hot air being developed in the interests of party both inside and outside the House. Ho defended’.Vesty's. to tho extent that it was their firm with British capital that had first fought t]ie American meat trust, which was getting a dangerous grip in this country. It was this menace that had led. up to the Government's legislation to set up the Meat Board to fight Armours. Ifon. members would remember how the Government were fought on that issue. Let the Op-

position look, up the division lists on the subject and they would see who were the friends of the big American trust, the men who fought the legislation both in the committee and in the House. Mr Sidey controverted the allegations of Mr McLeod, that the' Opposition had opposed the- Meat Board legislation. Leaders of the Opposition had favoured the legislation, and the bill was read a second time withoue division. - THE MINISTER'S REPLY "What were Mr Lysnar's charges?" asked the Minister for Agriculture, upon rising to reply. He classed them under three headings—(l), That the Minister for Agriculture had' wrongfully permitted the transfer of a meat export license from the Poverty Bay Farmers' Meat Company to Vesty Bros.; (2) that in doing so he had been actuated by undue influence on the part of the "big financial institutions(3), that the chairman of the Meat Board had been guilty of grossly improper conduct in misusing the powers vested in the Meat Boara so as td encourage trusts. He had also alleged that the Meat Board was being run, not for the producers, but in the interests of trusts and combines. < MEMBERS FAVOURED COMMISSION "Continual repetition of these charges (despite constant denials)," the Minister went on, "and the support accorded to him by the Opposition in this House ■and by a section of the Press outside, caused a feeling in the minds of many people that there must be something in the charges.' In my speech on the third reading of the Meat Export Control Bill last year, I announced that a Royal Commission would be set up to inquire intoithe whole matter, and the leaders of tho Opposition and of the Labour Party approved of this.

REASONS FOR LICENSE "In my speech on the third reading of tho Bill I gave the reasons which actuated me- in granting the transfer to-Vesty Bros. These I repeat:—(l), There were in Poverty Bay three freezing works—two co-operative and one propnetary. It was beyond doubt that two works were ample for the requirements of the district; (2), Vesty's for years had held an export license for their i Taruheru works at Gisborne. This license was renewed by the late Hon. vV. D. S. Macdonald, after the passing of the Act of 1918; (3, Yesty\s untended rebuilding and extending their Taruheru works;; (4), in 1923 the Poverty Bay Farmers' Meat Company; Ltd., was hopelessly insolvent, and reconstruction was considered impossible; (5), As the company had no hope of ever extricating itself from its predicament, and as thtf financial position was likely to become still worse, the National Bank exercised its right as mortgagee to sell the works; (6), The land, plant, and buildings were sold to Vesty’s at a price greater than their balance-sheet values. Vesty’s were the only possible buyers, and had they nut-bid it would have meant -a further enormous loss to the shareholders: (7), Vesty’s Were allowed to-transfer their license from Taruheru to Waipapa on. condition that they dismantled their, old works; (8), Vesty’s are in no better position in Poverty Bay (or elsewhere) than they would have been had they built a large works at Taruheru and had as competitors two farmers' concerns, each working against the other. CHARGE REFUTED ‘ "Every one of these statements has bee*., borne .out hy. evidence, and found by the commission tq be correct. I think I may claim that the actions of the Government and -of myself have been completely vindicated. .... “The charge that I was in the grip of the big financial institutions’ was made early in the course of the inquiry and repeated several times, although no evidence was given in support of it. When I challenged Mr Lysnar to substantiate it, his counsel rose and it was withdrawn unreservedly. But in his final address the hon. member again repeated it It ie satisfactory to nqte that the commission has stated so plainly that this charge is entirely without foundation. . “I am pleased that the charges against Mr David Jones have been so utterly disproved. Mr Jones has a very high sense of his responsibilities as chairman of the Meat Producers’ Board, and it was most unfair that-he should have, been attacked in such an unworthy way under cover of the privileges of this House,

“FAIR AND IMPARTIAL” "Several members have used the term 'whitewashing’ in connection with this inquiry, presumably intending to imply that the commission had reported in such a way as to hide some discreditable actions. Anyone knowing the high moral standing of the gentlemen who comprised the commission will realise how impossible it would be for them to lend themselves to anything of the sort. "It is evident from the rbport -thpt every aspect of the "matter was dealt with in a fair and impartial manner, and the findings expressed without fear or favour." The motion to refer the report by the commission to the Government for consideration was agreed to. BILLS PASSED

The Valuation of Land Bill, the Local Election and Polls Bill, and the Mutual Fire Insurance Amendment Bill were passed.