WATERFRONT PROBLEM

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 11, Issue 63, 6 August 1947, Page 3

WATERFRONT PROBLEM

MR W. SULLIVAN’S CRITICISM I The public was much disturbed I over the waterfront position and I wanted to see the situation corectJed, said Mr W. Sullivan (National, I Bay of Plenty) discussing in ParliaI ment the position on the waterfront, j The Minister of Labour (Mr McLagan), in a written reply to a! quesI tion, said as indicated earlier, no I decision had been made to set up a J I new waterfront commission. Disj cussions now proceeding with the J representatives of the shipowners and the. waterside workers were purely exploratory and for the purpose of ascertaining what measure jof agreement could be arrived at I with the parties directly concerned with the working of the waterfront. J When the discussions had been completed the whole position would be considered by the Government and a decision would then be made.

Discussing the reply, Mr Sullivan said that apparently the desire was that the commission should consist of two representatives of the waterside workers, two representatives of the shipowners and two represen-

tatives appointed by the GovernI ment, with no doubt the Minister in the background controlling the whole situation. That meant that the watersider workers would have control of the waterfront. Over recent months the position had drifted from bad to worse. A bad position was developing in Auckland at present, and it was ail entirely due to I lack of~ control. The Government should set up a commission to inquire into the whole question of control of the waterfront, the commission to bring down recommendations and the Government to work in accordance with those recommendations. The waterside I workers, however, apparently wanted a commission to suit themselves. The Government should consider adopting the contract system. That

was the only way to get results—paying the -men in accordance with their own efforts. A Government member: The men have been asking for that for 20 years.

Mr Sullivan said that in that case the Government should get to work and give the men something. He said that in 1933 the average rate of loading for a gang was about 13 tons an hour, but at the present

time it was just over 9 tons an hour

The cost of loading in 1933 had been about 2/7 a ton, and at the present time it was over 8s a ton. The rate of loading had decreased by 33 per cent, and the cost of loading had increased by 300 per cent. Nobody could justify such a state of affairs. Let no one say he was making an attack on the watersiders, continued Mr Sullivan. All that the Opposition wanted was to see the matter straightened out. Two commissions had already been tried, and the Government was at present considering the appointment of another which would be biased in favour of the waterfront workers. The reduction of the hours of waterfront workers during the previous six months or so had cost the country a loss of loading at the four main ports equivalent to 29,000 tons of produce a week. Taken over the whole year, that would amount to lost loading equivalent to 1,500,000 tons. The problem was to get the work done more efficiently, to get the ships loaded and unloaded more quickly and so facilitate getting goods into and out of the country.