URGENT INQUIRY SOUGHT

Southland Times, Issue 23378, 9 December 1937, Page 6

URGENT INQUIRY SOUGHT

Waterfront Delays In New Zealand EFFECT ON OVERSEAS TRADE WATERSIDERS ACCUSED OF BREAKING AGREEMENT (From Our Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, November 8. The necessity for an urgent investigation into the whole question of waterfront delays was emphasized by Mr W. J. Polson (Nat., Stratford) in the House of Representatives today when he moved an adjournment of the House in order that the hold-up on the Auckland waterfront might be discussed. “I regret to have to bring this matter forward at such a late stage in the session,” Mr Polson said, but it is something which cannot be allowed to pass in silence. The expeditious handling of cargo on the wharves is of the utmost importance to the country and particularly to farmers.” Mr Polson put forward reasons for his action under separate headings. He pointed to the gravity of the situation which had arisen with 24 vessels lying idle, involving the shipping companies and the general community in heavy losses. Carrying firms had had to dismiss employees because of their inability to obtain goods from ships’ holds and business had been dislocated by the hold-up of goods urgently required for the Christmas and New Year trade. Another reason advanced by Mr Polson was that such occurrences would cause disorganization in the conveyance of the Dominion’s primary products to the world’s markets. Accommodation in the wool stores had been overtaxed and the delays in the shipment of dairy produce, frozen mutton and lamb and chilled and frozen meat would cause heavy losses to producers, as shown by

the delays in the chilled beef loadings some months ago, because of the fact that no advantage would be obtained from the high prices for such products normally ruling qn the United Kingdom market at this season. Freezing space in the Auckland province had become so congested that dairy factories and freezing works might have been forced to reject producers’ goods. POSITION OF PRODUCERS The Auckland dispute, Mr Polson continued, was only the culminating point to the waterfront trouble, which represented a complete violation of an agreement which was binding in law. Consideration had to be given to the plight of the primary producers, who in their struggle against rising costs would be further handicapped financially because of the unconstitutional action of one section of industrial workers, which was detrimental to the interests of New Zealand as a whole.

The final reason given by Mr Polson for moving an adjournment of the House was the necessity for an immediate inquiry into the circumstances leading to the hold-up in waterfront work. “What an advertisement this Auckland trouble has been for New Zealand,” Mr Polson said. “A demand has been made time and again by the primary producers of the Dominion that the whole question of waterfront work should be investigated, but they have not been heeded. These troubles mean increases in shipping freights and extraordinary damage to our produce. All sections of producers and shippers are penalized.” * The waterside workers, Mr Polson continued, had entered into an agreement that all disputes would be referred to a committee on which both sides would be represented. That agreement had been endorsed by the Arbitration Court and should have all the binding force of an Arbitration Court award. When the men held up the work they were not penalized, except through the loss of their wages, but if the employers held up the work it would be a different matter. Much was expected from the bureau system of engaging waterfront labour, but so far it had neither prevented abuses nor improved conditions of work. SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTE “This dispute was settled by Mr James Roberts,” said Mr Polson. “He succeeded where a sub-committee of the Cabinet failed. Mr Roberts himself has stated during the last few days that the watersiders could give 50 per cent, better despatch and cut the time of work in half. He has blamed the ships’ agents and stevedores for all the trouble, but it is known that he is aiming at the establishment of a co-operative _ stevedoring company, with himself in control. The position has now advanced to such a stage that we are justified in asking who is ruling this country, the Government or the Trades and Labour Council? A thing like this should not be a class issue, but should be confined to an impartial administration of the law. The people who were prejudicially affected by the hold-up should have received the protection of the Government, but instead of that the Government appears to be dominated by the Trades Hall.” The Speaker (the Hon. W. E. Barnard): Order 1 The honourable member must get closer to the subject matter of the motion.

“What has happened cannot be allowed to continue,” added Mr Polson, “and it is the duty of the Government to tackle the problem. The public inquiry so often asked for by the primary producers should be granted. We want the matter put right and we want the Government, which ought to have the ability to control its own followers, to give justice in the matter. We are asking that something should be done to prevent a repetition of this scandaL”