The Grey River Argus THURSDAY, October 7, 1948. HOORAY! DISSOLVE!

Grey River Argus, 7 October 1948, Page 4

The Grey River Argus THURSDAY, October 7, 1948. HOORAY! DISSOLVE!

'J’HE remarks in the House of Representatives even of their "own leader, after the rowdy behaviour of tlie Opposition members last night, were enough to suggest that they are already out of control. The broadcasts over more than one session have given ample indication of a growing spirit of irresponsibility amongst the rank and file of the National Party, who appear to imagine that questions, noise and interruptions, rather than clear argument, are calculated to impress listeners with their ability. No doubt, scenes are on occasion inseparable from Parliamentary activity, and a single instance could not be taken over seriously, but a series of provocative actions is naturally recalled when they culminate in such a tumult as characterised the refusal last night to obey the ruling of the Chairman of Committees. The question prompted in many minds will be as to whether prudent legislation is to be. obtained if those responsible for its examination are liable to be so irresponsible.

It is no excuse if the Opposition actually expected, to win a division—which they actually imagined they had done, until the lists were recounted, and the Government had the majority—whilst the Prime Minister is absent from the country. The debate centred on the right of the waterside workers to have direct representation on Harbour Boards —that is by appointment of members, as distinct from election. A really marvellous love of democratic forms suddenly infused the Nationalist speeches the moment that there was question of giving to workers the same representation by appointment to the Boards as has been hitherto accorded as a matter of course to payers of harbour dues, as well as the State. It was pointed out if farmers have more than fifty representatives on Boards, they are elected ones, and to give point to the argument against the workers, the Opposition proposed to do away with all appointments, ft can be asserted with every show 7 of reason that if any section of people should have direct representation on the Boards, it is that of the workers on the waterfront. On the contrary, the objection originally raised solely as against them, is more because they are workers than because of anything else. There may' be fifty farmers on Boards—and doubtless it is because of their interests as fanners—but there are by no means as many watersiders, whose interests nevertheless arc involved as much as those of farmers or payers of dues. The principle of according the workers a due voice in industrial and commercial policy is one gaining growing recognition

tar and wide, and in the ease of harbour administration the principle of representation is more important than that of election, In other words, the end is more important than the means. Seeing that in so very many other instances of administration the elective process is neither invariable nor always practicable, it is strange to find such an exception made when the wage earners alone are concerned. Admittedly the proposal in this Bill is a compromise, but its object is democratic. in the respect that representation is sought for a specially interested section of people who otherwise might lack the means of securing representation. In other words the seeming contradiction between appointment and election is resolved in the final analysis if due representation is actually I‘ealised. The Chairman of Committees therefore was justified in putting the acid on the tautological use of a term, and there really was no resort to “gagging”. No doubt their leader will see fit to remonstrate with those who discarded Parliamentary dignity in a revolutionary spirit.