MESSRS BARNES AND HILL STATE THEIR CASE

Chronicle (Levin), 5 April 1949, Page 7

MESSRS BARNES AND HILL STATE THEIR CASE

, Messrs Barnes and Hill niudc , th fpUowing statement:— "We feel it necessarv bricfly to sei out our r e ason s ,f or_ dis s e 11 1 i 11 g from tlu decision of the Waterfront tndustr> . Authority. The publie will no doubt : recall that before the Mountpark tri buna], the charge >vas made that the real waterfront controller was the Min ister of Labour. and that the Water front Commission was merely a smokescr.een to.cover his activities. As justi fication for this latest intrusion. bj the Minister of Labour aud (fovernnient into the jurisdictional field of the Waterfront Industry Authority, the chairman pleaded amcndment No. 1 of the Waterfront Industry Eniergency Iiegulations 1946. These regulations, it will be recalled, were brought down at the time the Ongley Commission had been disbanded and when there was no actual controlling body. The amend ment read: 'The Minister ma.v from time to time, by order in writing, sus pend in whole or in part, all or any of the provisions of the principal regula tions or any order, direction or de cisioii made by the commission or by any port committee under the principal .egulations, in respect of their applica tion to all or auv of the parts in New .Zealand. and may at any time or f'rorr. time to time, revoke or vary any such order. ' "When the Waterfront Industry Aut-horitv was set up it was stated that this was the linaJ. court of appeal foi tiie waterfront industry and its deci sions wmuld be biuding 011 all parties. This appeal court again was set up t( remedy a defect most appareut in tlu Mountpark dispute. We now see that this was not the case. The linal powe; at all times rests in the dictatoria! hands of the Minister of Labour who. without rhyme or reason, can suspeiui or vary anv decision of the authority The authority, in passing the resolu tion ealling upon the Waterside Work ers' Union to accept its decisions at all times, was at the same time prepared to accept a situation in which the Minister of Labour, at will, can over ride and destroy any decisions tlu authority made. This decision, coming from a so-called judicial ajid impartiai body, wras hypocris.v to which we could not subscribe. Consequently, we dis sented from the decision and the Judge then adjourned the authority sine die. "We have felt it necessary to makc this statement because, as members of the so-called linal court of appeal, we .are not prepared to tell waterside workers that at any time they must accept all this court of appeal 's decisions while, in the person of the Minister of Labour, you have an individuai who can override them at will."