Harbour Board Opposes Giving Representation To Watersiders

Wanganui Chronicle, 20 July 1948, Page 4

Harbour Board Opposes Giving Representation To Watersiders

Mayor And Government Nominee Only Supporters Of Suggestion

Opposition to the legislation now before Parliament providing for the representation of the waterside industry on harbour hoards was expressed at yesterday’s meeting of the Wanganui Harbour Board. A letter from Ihe New Zealand Harbour Board's Association advised the board that under the legislation the Wanganui Board would have one representative of the industry.

On the motion of the chairman (Mr. E. A. Millward), the board received tiie letter and protested against the principle involved. An amendment that the letter should be received and no action taken was moved by th 6 Hon. W. J. Kogers, M.L.0., and seconded by Mi 1 . W. F. Cummings, but they were the only two members to vote for it.

“I think we have been fairly well served here by the waterside workers, compared with some centres," said Mr. Morrison. He suggested that the board should make a strong protest against the waterside workers being granted representation on the hoard. "I think it is definitely wrong. If I had live or six workers on my farm I would not lilte to hav'e them telling me how to rufi it." said Mr. A. A. Winwood. ,T am definitely opposed to it,” he said. If the waterside workers had representation on the board and there was equal voting on a question affecting them, their representative would vote for the workers’ interests, said the chairman. The Hon. W. J. Rogers: As is done now on this board by interested parties. He said that the counties had four members on the board and only Paid half as much In rates as the city council and could dictate the policy of the boardMr. W. F. Cummings, who is the Government representative on the board, said he was surprised that the board did not favour tiie waterside industry having one representative on the board. The legislation did not say that the representative should be a waterside worker, but a representative of the industry. In past years there had been nominated members of the board and there had been no cry from board members or the Harbour Board's Association. Now that there was talk of worker representation it was considered to be beyond the pale. Had the board in the past co-operated more Ylosely with its employers this talk about non-elective members would not have arisen. In most industries today, said Mr. Cummihgs, the co-operation oi workers was sought lor the welfare of the employers and for the special knowledge which they could give. The majority of the waterside workers were ratepayers and could probably manage the affairs of the board more efficiently. Mr. A. A. Winwood: Let them stand for the board then. Mr. Cummings said he could not understand how Ute board could be frightened by the possible vote of one waterside worker. Mr. \V. Morrison: It is a matter of principle. We are not afraid of a waterside worker.

''Personally I do not favour the principle,” said the chairman, Mr. E. A. Millward. He did not consider it right that any union should be particularly favoured in industry. Individuals were elected to the board by popular vote and if the Government was going to appoint members of harbour boards it would only be the thin end of the wedge to have similar representation on the city council, the hospital board and other local bodies.

The Hon. W. J. Rogers, M.L.C.: That is coming very soon. The waterside workers were receiving £5OO to £6OO a vear and it dirt not seem right that they should be able to dictate the policy of the board, said the chairman. At present the board had Mr- Cummings, who was the Government representative and he would say that he u ould only be too pleased to nominate him for' another term if his present term were to end tomorrow. LEGISLATION WARRANTED.

“I am sorry that I have to disagree with the chairman, but I believe the legislation is fully warranted,” said the Hon. W. J. Rogers. M.L.C. He could not see how one representative of the waterside workers could dictate the policy of the board. He always thught that those around the board table were believers in worker representation in industry- The waterside workers, the chairman had said, earned between £5OO and £6OO a year, but no one begrudged them that as they gave good service for that money. How could one waterside worker dictate the policy of the board as the strength of the board would only be increased by one member. Mr. W. Morrison: There would be only one here, but there will be three at Auckland and some other places.

Mr. Morrison said that he was definitely opposed to the watersiders having a representative on the board. He could not see why the workers should have a say in dictating the policy of the board- Members of the board were elected by popular vote and were placed in office to do what they considered right In the interests of the community. The Government had one representative on the board now to watch its interests and he was not opposed to that. The principal was absolutely wrong and in his opinion was only the thin end of the wedge. If the Government got this through it would ask for something more and then something more to take away from the employers control of their industry. STRONG PROTEST SUGGESTED. Adding that he was strongly opposed to the proposal, Mr. Morrison said that there was nothing like that in the old days and there was less trouble then than there was today.

It was not a question of another member of the board but the principle which was involved, said Mr. E. J. Kiri;. He added that representatives on local bodies were limited to £25 when trading with the body, but the waterside workers would be interested to a much greater extent than this. To give these interested parties representation on the board would be a departure from democratic principles.

Mr. Millward moved that the board should receive the letter, but should express opposition to the principle involved. This was seconded by Mr. W. Morrison.

The Hon. W. J. Rogers moved en amendment that the board should receive the letter and tale no action. This was seconded b? Mr. W. F. Cummings. The amendment was lost on a show of hands, the Hon. W. J. Rogers and Mr. Cummings being the only members to vote in favour of it.