Harbours Amendment Bill Criticised
Press Association )
(Per
WELLINGTON, July 20. Mr. F. >S. liackctt, moving the secontl reading of Ihe liarbours Amendmeni Bijl in the liouse of Jfepresentatives, said the appointnient of men of practicai experience on Harbour Eoards, was one of the niain objects in the Bill vvhieh would bring about greater efficiejicy in the woriung of harbours. Appointmehts would be made from a panei of names submitted by the 13 or 14 organisations engaged in the waterfront industry. Mr. Sheat: Including the seagulls? Mr. Hackett went on to say that representation 011 boardo by men of practical experience^ would be an asset. Mr. J. K. M cAlpine (Selwyn, Gppositioji) said the Bill did nothing to solve the age-old problem of Harbour Boards. The Government nlreadv had nominees 011 • most boards and the remedy was in the Government 's hands to appoint practical men. Mr. McAlpine went on to say that the smaller organisations mentioned by the Minister had always been outvoted three or four to one, by the largest union — the ^vaterside workers. Harbour Boards would have in effeet one more appointee from the Watersiders ' 1'nion. Sectional repYesentation had, in the past, been condemned and recent Irends 011 the waterfront showed that there was no intention by the waterfront industry as such, to facilitate the sinootli working of the harbours in New Zealand. Was it riglit that the payers of dues shoulcl have a total of 12 memhers on all the Harbour Boards and the waterfront industry 27? The Bill was seeking to take away the authority of the boards ancl they would cease to be empolyers. What was wanted waS a Bill to reduce anomalies, not to increase them. Mr. .T. N. Arassev (Franklin, Opposition) said the Government which had been eritieal of appointments in the past, today had produced a Bill which provided for further appointments. The Government was not providing for a democratie method of seleeting appointees and apparently believed in the advanoed idea of Government by uomination and in the principle of government by a minority. Principles Set Aside. Mr, W. A. Sheat (Patea, Opposition) said the Bill cut right across the recommendations of tlie t'ommission on Local Government set up by the Government, which reported to the liouse in 1945. Une.very delinite recomniendation was that ref/re&entation should not be given on local bodies" to sectional interests. Now the Government was flagrantiy setting that principle aside with oue of the most undemocratic Bills to come before this Parliament. The only expianation seenied to be that the watersiders had sufficient influence on the Government to get- what they wanted. Mr. Connolly: Talk sense. Mr. Sheat said there could be 110 proposal more iniproper than one to place additional responsibility in the hands of a section oi the community whieh, by its recent aetions in holding up food ships for Britain, had proved its irresponsibility. Despite what the Government said about Communists, the outcome of this legislation would be that a Communist would be appointcd to the Auckland Harbour Board, supported by fellow travellers such as those who had caused the recent tfouble. The Bill would shock the public. It was significant that several members of the Government who had supported the Local Government Commission's report, were ahsent from the House today. Mr. Sheat named Messrs Coleinan, Anderton, McComhs, Parry and Petrie as niemhers who had signed the Commission's report and asked why they were not in the House to explain their changed attitude. (Messrs McComhs and Petrie entered the chamher shortly afterwards). Mr. C. H. Chapman (Wellington Oentral, Labour) said the Bill gdve the Opposition a ehanee to voice yet again their. hatred of the watersiders. The Bill did not introduce but merelv extended the principle of plural voting : which already existed for Harbour i Board elections. Mr. Chapman said the mneiple of worker representation in. industry "was sound and the Bill was iustifi.ee! for that alone.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHRONL19480721.2.26
Bibliographic details
Chronicle (Levin), 21 July 1948, Page 5
Word Count
652Harbours Amendment Bill Criticised Chronicle (Levin), 21 July 1948, Page 5
Using This Item
NZME is the copyright owner for the Chronicle (Levin). You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of NZME. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.