The Dominion MONDAY, JANUARY 17, 1921. SUSPICIOUS SECRECY

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 96, 17 January 1921, Page 4

The Dominion MONDAY, JANUARY 17, 1921. SUSPICIOUS SECRECY

Early last month the Welfare League supplied details of a proposed agreement between shipowners and the, Waterside Workers’ Federation for the establishment in Dominion ports of a co-operative steve- , doring association. In an article which appeared on Saturday the League declares that arrangements are in train to put tjie scheme into operation about the middle of this month (that is to say, at any time now) and that if any action which may be necessary in the public interest is not taken promptly it may prove to be too late. Whether the Welfare League is well or ill-in-formed in regard -to the details of its revelations, a state_ of affairs exists in connection with this cooperative stevedoring scheme to which the public has every reason to take exception. The merits of the scheme are not,’ for the moment, in question. The parties to the projected agreement have not, indeed, thought fit to reveal these details, and these parties must recognise that they are themselves solely responsible for the uneasy suspicions raised that the arrangements they are considering or concluding, whatever the case may be, are prejudicial to the public.. It is admitted that important changes in the control of stevedoring are being considered by the shipowners and watersiders, and on obvious grounds the public arc entitled to know what these proposed changes are before any attempt is made to put them into effect. Stevedoring is not an ordinary industry.. It merges Imperceptibly into a public service carried on with capital and facilities provided at the public’ cost. At the same time any increased outlay in connection with the business of cargo handling. at once becomes a charge upon the public. Following on the publication of the draft scheme by the Welfare League. Mr. Bennett (general manager of the Wellington Co-operative Waterside Labour Employment Association) made a statement on behalf of the shipowners in which he denied that the scheme boro “the siniste.r aspect attributed to it by its critics” and affirmed that it was genuine endeavour on the part of the shipowners to evolve out of the unsatisfactory conditions no# prevailing on the waterfronts a modus operand;, which, if accepted by the [waterside workers'! federation, will, it is hoped and believed, mark a very distinct .step in the direction of improvement from the point of view of the waterside workers, of the shipping companies concernsd, and of. the public at large. Mr. Bennett further stated that the scheme as presented to the Waterside Workers’ Federation was “merely in skeleton form,” that the cardinal point in the whole scheme from the point of view of the shipowners and of the public was the retention by the former of the full control of their business operations in connection with the loading and discharging of ships, and furthermore that the scheme established the principle of payment by results.

If the shipowners and the watersiders are living up to these professions they have no need of secrecy and would find in frank publicity a means of removing any suspicion now raised that they are planning to promote their own interests at the expense of the rest of the community. .Co-operation between employers and employees is in every way desirable, and payment bv results also is thoroughly sound in principle. Neither shipowners nor waterside workers need fear opposition from the public in applying these methods to stevedoring in a, scheme which otherwise will bear scrutiny as duly safeguarding the interests of the public. But if the shipowners and watersiders are working out or have concluded an agreement on these lines, why are they so carefully veiling their proceedings in secrecy'l Ma. Bennett’s statement of about a month _ ago which has been quoted consisted purely of general assurances. It tlfl’cw no real light on the position, nor has any been cast since by representatives either of the shipowners or the watersiders. In such a matter the public ought not to be dependent in any respect upon volunteer efforts tf> secure backstairs information. As the party which pays, it is entitled to explicit information regarding any projected change in the control of stevedoring, and not only to information but to specific guarantees that its interests will be safeguarded. For such guarantees it must look obviously to its responsible representatives. Arc the Government and the harbour authorities of the Dominion in touch with the reported negotiations between shipowners and waterside workers, and are they being consulted in regard to the changes proposed 1 If the answer to, these questions is affirmative the duty rests on the public authorities of indicating whether or not there, arc grounds for the uneasy suspicions now raised. If the Government and the harbour authorities arc as much in the dark as the public, it would seem that there is a case for immediate investigation. Tho Government recently detailed a highly-

placed official to inquire into essentially local and detail questions in dispute at one of the West Coast coal pits. Are petty affairs of this kind to receive such attention while questions of waterfront control, involving imp<* tant issues, of public policy and vitally affecting the interests of the public, are neglected 1