DELAYS ON AUCKLAND WATERFRONT ARE DEBATED IN THE HOUSE

Wanganui Chronicle, 1 July 1948, Page 5

DELAYS ON AUCKLAND WATERFRONT ARE DEBATED IN THE HOUSE

Opposition Says Government Has Shown Much Weakness

(Press Association) PARLIAMENT BLDQS., June 30 Conditions prevailing in the waterfront industry, with particular reference to the situation at Auckland, provided a new topic for Opposition speakers in the debate on the Imprest Supply Bill, which was resumed in the House of Representatives tonight.

The Minister of Labour (Mi'. McLagan) entered the debate and while he said that those responsible for the actions of the Auckland Waterside Workers’ Union, were hindering the Government, the work of all watersiders should net be condemned because of the actions of the few, and the Government would go on trying to find a solution of the trouble.

Mr. A. S. Sutherland, opening the evening's debate, said there was a crisis on the waterfronts of the country today, nd if the Government had any scheme which would work for harmony, then the Opposition would be 100 per cent, behind it. The vessel Mountpark had been tied up at the export wharf, Auckland, for six weeks, and it was costing the country more than £5OO a day. The Auckland Harbour Board had proposed to move the shin away from the wharf, “but that was knocked on the head.” The Government was procrastinating over the situation. Ninety per cent, of the watersiders in Auckland were decent, hard-working fellows, but it was a small disruptive element causing ail the trouble, led by Messrs Barnes. Drennan, Hill and company. Since the Labour Government had come into power costs had risen 400 per cent, on the Auckland waterfront, while the amount of cargo handled had diminished considerably. The primary producers had been told io produce more and they had done so to a remarkable degree, but it al meant that a colossal tonnage of produce was packed away in stores. In Auckland on Friday last there was 154,100 tons of meat alone in stores, equal to 6,164,000 wethers. Mr P. Kearins (Govt., Waimarino): There’s nothing unusual about that. Mr. Sutherland then said that although the amount of butter and cheese in stores was high—26,4oo tons and 10,000 tons respectively—it was only fair to say that there would probably be a great reduction in tne near future. “WON’T STAND FOB IT.” “The primary producers will not stand for the situation much longer," said Mr. Sutherland. “Through the spineless efforts of the Socialist Government we have a gang of wreckers in charge on the waterfronts, and the strong, silent Minister of Labour has capitulated to them.” Mr. Sutherland said he had visited the Mountpark and had lifted the hatches himself. He was amazed at the. weight of tho hatch covers. “It is only a kid’s job to handle them, and only child’s play for a grown man to lift them. Why, they are not the weight of a decent swag,” he said. If the watersiders would not handle the covers, then the Government should have stepped in and let someone who would work the ship. Mr. Sutherland said it took a gang of men 15 minutes to remove the hatch covers, a crane 45 minutes, and an untrained ship's crew 65 minutes. The Mountpark had: visited New Zealand six or seven times since 1946, hut there had been no word previously said about the hatch covers. The Auckland port had the best mechanical equipment in the world, but in 1928, when there was no mechanical gear, 15 tons of cargo had been unloaded an hour. Today, with all the mechanical equipment, only half that quantity was unloaded. “I have been told by the ship's captain that the Auckland waterfront is the slowest in the world,” said Mr. Sutherland. “How long are we going to stand for this?” Mr F. W. Doidge (Opp. Tauranga): You’ll stand it till you push the Government down the hatch. Mr. Sutherland reiterated that the Ministry and the Government had shown a spineless attitude toward the waterfront situation, and had succumbed to gangsters. Otherwise, the troubles would have been settled long ago. He considered, a Supreme Court judge should be at the head of the Waterfront Control Commission. After making references to the fight between tire Government and the Communists, which he described as a “sham” one, Mr. Sutherland said the time had arrived when the producers of the country should take a little more interest in the handling of their own produce. “If a farmer worked as hard as the watersillers -ve would all lie starving and eating grass," he said. He draw a comparison between the loading of Ihe Radnik and other vessels, and said all the bearings on the Radnik were hot when it was being loaded. He was convinced that Communists were the agents for the Soviet Union working .0 create unrest in industry “Until we get rid cl them we will continue to have unrest,” he said. “The time has come for a change of Government and one which will rule for the masses and not lor a selected few.”

The Minister of Labour (Mr. McLagan), who spoke next, was subjected to frequent interjections during the opening part of his speech. He said that tnose mostly responsible for the request not to move the Mountpark from the wharf out into the stream were the waterfront employers. The Government and the Waterfront Commission had supported that request to the Harbour Board, but did not originate it.. Mr. Sutherland had criticised the Government for appointing a succession of waterfront commissions, but the Government's offence, in the eyes of the Opposition, was to have sought to give a measure of control to those who were doing the job. Mr. S'. W. Smith (Opp., Hobson): But they are not doing it. Mr. McLagan said that in most ports, other than Auckland, watersiders were doing an excellent job, as employers had testified. Surely the Government was justified in seeking the co-operation of those who worked on the whaVves. Answering Mr. Sutherland's statement that Mr. Drennan had attended a recent conference of the Labour Party in Dunedin. Mr. McLagan said it was incorrect. “Even from the member for Hauraki I expect a higher level of information than that." he declared. Mr. Sutherland was to be congratulated on being able to handle the Mountpark slings, even if he showed no sign of being able to handle other things. The Minister said that when

the watersiders were recently confronted with a statement that the I hatches of the Mountpark were hand- ! led manually at Sydney and at Welj lington, their reply was that at Sydney the hatches were removed only partially to enable chutes to go through into the holds. However, the master of the vessel had reported that all the vessel’s hatches would be removed during loading and no hooks were used. At Port Pirie, in Soutn Australia, it was necessary to ask the watersiders to refrain from throwing the hatches on to the deck—a distance of about 15 feet The Superintendent of Marine and Surveyor of Ships at Auckland had certified that the hatches were in good condition, and were suitable for manual handling, as had been practised at other New Zealand ports. Mr McLagan, discussing the rate of work at Auckland, said it was better than the rates quoted by waterfront employers at the time—not long before the Waterfront Industry Commission was established—when they tried to persuade the watersiders to work cargo on a contract basis. For instance, employers quoted as the normal rate of loading 550 boxes of butter an hour and 550 carcases of mutton, whereas the current rates at Auckland were 742 cases of butter and 729 carcases. There were several factors affecting the loading which was beyond the watersiders’ control. For instance, the port facilities were inadequate for the tonnage which now had to be handled. Work now finished at 9 p.im., compared with 10 p.m. or 11 p.m. formerly. There was congestion in the wharf sheds, there had been changes in the types of cargo requiring the use of more trays and fewer slings, and there were no cranes in the wharf sheds for stacking goods.

“However, despite these factors, which are beyond tile control of the watersiders, the fact remains that the rate of work at Auckland is not satisfactory,’' said Mr. McLagan, “but if the Auckland watersiders, or some of them, are to be blamed, only those who are doing equal work or better work, should criticise them.” The great majority of watersiders were excellent workers, and reports of their work from some ports in the Dominion could hardly be bettered. Mr. Sutherland had alleged that certain persons who were officials of the Waterside Workers’ Union were hand in glove with the Government and that these men and the Government were jointly responsible for the Mountpark hold-up. “I must say that not even the member for Hauraki can exceed the zeal of some of these persons for the destruction of the Government,” decuared Mr. McLagan. “These people are the bitterest enemies of this Government. They have set thetnselvs out all along to frustrate the efforts of the Government to bring about ; better and happier state of affairs on the waterfront.” They had made various claims in regard to the Mountpark dispute which they could not substantiate, but when they took the issue to court they had refused to produce one tittle of evidence. Mr. J. K. McAlpine (Opp., Selwyn) said the hatches on the Mountpark which the watersiders were asked to lift with one man at each end weighed less, than a sack of chaff, of wheat, or potatoes, which the farmers had to handle unaided. Mr. McAlpine asked if the Minister of Labour would make an honest settlement of the Mountpark dispute and quell the leaders of it. Mr. R. M. Macfarlane (Govt., Christchurch Central) examining the motives, of the Opposition in bringing the waterfront dispute into the debate. said it was done in order to make political capita) out of the situation. “We are entitled to look with some suspicion on the attitude of the Opposition,” he said. “This Government is perfectly justified in exhausting every possible channel to secure a settlement of the dispute. The Auckland leaders have never Wen friends of the Government and there is no justification for the situation in Auckland. Mr. R. M. Algie (Opp., Remuera): Where is the law then?

Mr. Macfarlane went on to say that the newspapers in the country had to some extent assisted the dispute by publishing certain statements. “All waterside workers should not stand condemned because of the] action of a few wno are out to hinder! and hamper the Government in every possible way,” he said. “The Auckland Waterside Union should make up its mind and realise it was being used as a tool. “The Government will exhaust all channels to settle the dispute,” said Mr. Macfarlane,” and the Government will stand up to the I situation.”

Mr. W. S. Goosman (Opp., Piako) said that if ever a Minister of Labour had made anaemic and spineless speech the present Minister made one when he spoke. The speech oozed ot helplessness and hopelessness. The Opposition had brought the matter to the floor of the House, not because it desired to make political capital out of the situation. but because it had a duty to expose the situation to the country. The Government had no intention of facing the situation, but would go on mouthing brave words and then running away. APPEASEMENT WILL NOT WORK The Government should know by now that a policy of appeasement would not work oO tar as the .waterfront was concerned. The Arbitration Court had been wrung dry and it had been a story of the waterfront getting one concession after another until it could get no more, and had then asked for a substitute for the Arbitration Court. The only conclusion that could be reached was that the leaders and the wreckers on the waterfront did not want peace because it did not suit their book. Surely the Government realised (hat appeasement would not settle ‘he waterfront situation.

Mr. Goosman said Mr. McLagan had not told the House what powers he had to deal with the present waterfront dispute, or what penalties he could impose on those of the watersiders who were bent on making trouble. If the Government lacked the adequate powers to cope with the situation it was time to take additional powers and the Opposition would assist the Government to do so. “How long does the Government think the producers and others in this country are going to carry’ on working only to have their efforts

frustrated by the clique which is leading the watersiders?” asked Mr. Goosman. There had never been a more determined attempt in this country to break down the system which our people believed in than was now evident on the waterfront Mr M. Moohan (Govt., Petone) said t he Opposition once again had sough* to scare t.he people with a threat of anarchy and even civil war, but the Opposition's own record was one of creating industrial unrest. They did not want peace or negotiation. Historically they believed in “the basher game.” “Put them on horseback and give them batons three feet long and bash the workers back tu work. That is the only philosophy they understand in relation to industrial trouble,” Mr. Moohan said. Industrial unrest was always an occasion for Mr. Goosman to show his hatred of industrial trade unionism. Mr. Goosman: That is absolutely incorrect I have a record I am proud of. Mr. Moohan said it suited the Opposition to have trouble on the Mountpark, and they would rejoice if other workers went on strike. Mr. Goosman: Deliberate misrepresentation. Mr. Moohan claimed that the Government’s record of industrial harmony was far better than that of any previous administration, and the Opposition’s attempt to create a panic was tota’lv unwarranted bv the facts. Mr. R. M. Algi? said the Minister of Labour had treated the public with contemptt, because he was not prepared to admit there was trouble on the Auckland waterfront, or to suggest a remedy for it The whole attitude of the Minister in the face of a great national calamity had been one of triviality. Auckland and other parts of New Zealand were suffering from the menace of Communism. The Imprest Bill, giving supply to the extent of £16,844,500, was passed and the House rose at 11.52 until 2.30 tomorrow. The Legislative Council met shortly after midnight and also passed the Imprest Supply B-H.