WAR REGULATIONS BILL

Southland Times, Issue 18936, 24 September 1920, Page 5

WAR REGULATIONS BILL

ALIEN WHARF WORKERS. RESTRICTIVE AMENDMENT RESISTED. (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, September 23. In the House this evening Mr Massey moved that the amendments made in the War Regulations Continuance Bill by the Legislative Council be agreed to. He said that there was only one important amendment, which provided that no one but a British subject should take part in the loading and unloading of a ship unless he first obtained a permit from a superintendent of police. The police had asked for this provision, as it was necessary to the efficient control of the water fronts. Mr P. Fraser objected to the provision, because he did not consider the Premier's explanation as to the need for the clause was sufficiently explicit. He wanted to know exactly what was in the mind of the police. What did they fear? Was it the safety of the ships, or was it pilfering, or was it industrial trouble? Mr Massey said that pilfeiing was one of the things behind (be clause, but it had nothing to do witli industrial trouble. Continuing, Mr Fraser said that a large number of foreigners whose work lay on the wharves suffered great hardship during the war. They belonged to neutral countries, but they recognised that in war time special precautions had to he taken, and they were prepared to submit, but now the war was over this sort of tiling should not be continued. This clause meant that the mind of the policeman instead of the mind of the statesman was ruling the country. Messrs McCombs and Howard wanted to know precisely what was at the back of the clause. Mr Holland said that- the clause would not only hit foreigners, but it would hit New Zealanders, for he doubted if any man would work under this amendment. Mr Wright said that as a member of the Wellington Harbour Board Ire was in a position to say that foreigners on the waterfront had been guilty of creating great mischief, and the clause was necessary to deal with them, and he hoped it would be passed. Mr Sullivan maintained that the clause made unfair discrimination between the alien commercial man and the alien worker. It was provided that if an alien enemy business man was in business before the coming info operation of this amendment he was to be permitted to carry on, but the alien worker was to be deprived of his living. He denied that foreigners on the wharves were at the bottom of the industrial unrest. That unrest was world-wide, and was due to the economic conditions arising out of the war. His long experience with trades unions in New Zealand had taught him foreigners had scarcely anything to do with these organisations. Those who were fighting for social justice in New Zealand were for the most part British nationals and sons of New Zcaalnd. Messrs McLeod, Kclloft, Statham and Lysnar, and Dr Thacker supported the regulation on the ground of national safety, while Mr W. T. Jennings opposed it on the ground that this class of legislation was calculated to promote national hatred. Mr Massey, in reply, said it was not the intention of the Government to persecute Gentians now living in the country, but he hoped they would never get hack to the state of peaceful penetration prevailing before the war. He wished to make it perfectly clear that the clause did not apply to New Zealanders or to any British subject. Much of what was included in the regulation was law at the present moment. He denied that the danse would cause offence to our Allies, especially Americans, but many dangerous men came from America. The recent, explosion in Wall Street, costing many lives, was the kind of thing they had to provide against. He did not believe that the industrial movement in New Zealand was dominated by foreigners, but there were some undesirable foreigners in the ranks of labour, and when they saw what was going on in other countries they were going to take necessary precautions. The clause had not been introduced till the Government was thoroughly satisfied that it. was required, and ho therefore moved its adoption. This was challenged by the Labour Party, who colled for a division, wbirh resulted in i the amendments being agreed to by 51 to 7.