RAILWAY CONTROL.

Auckland Star, Volume XXIV, Issue 220, 16 September 1893, Page 2

RAILWAY CONTROL.

THE COMMISSIONERS' MANAGE

MENT CRITICISED.

POWERFUL SPEECH BY THE

PREMIER.

(BIT TELEGRAPH. -PARLIAMENTARY

BEPORTEa.)

Wellington, this day. !n moving the second reading of the GoVernmeßb Railways Bill, tho Hon. Mr Seddon delivered a long ancl able speech dealing with the whole subject) in a most comprehensive manner. Before touching upon the provisions of the Bill, he boldly carried the war into tho onetny s country by delivering an attack upon tho existing Bystem of control and upon the Commissioners' management. He began by drawing attention to three divisions of the subject- Firstly, bhere waa construction of railways, which was under control of tho Public Works Department; thon there wa3 tho management of working railways, Which was vested in three Commissioners ; and, lastly, there was the policy which governed the management. For somo yoars past the railways had boen taken from the Control of the representatives of the people and placed in the hands of threo persons who were to a greab extent irresponsible to the people or to the Parliamenb. (Hear, hear.) Members were told they had followed the oxample of other colonies, bub he pointed oub that both Vie toria and New South Wales had regretted very much the course thoy had taken, and such was also tho experience of Now Zealand. The change that took place in 1887, whereby control was taken from Parliament, waß introduced without tho people being consulted, and the Governmenb now asked thab the people's rights should bo restored. He would not say a single word against the Railway Commissioners. Messrs Maxwell and Hannay were acknowleged to bo experts, while in Mr McKorrow the country had a highly trained Government official whose services as Surveyor-General had been of great value. He might say thab Mr McKerrow was forced to accepb the position of Chief Railway Commissioner. He, knowing his unfitness, protested, and yet in the face of that protost he was FORCED INTO THE POSITION.

Mr Seobie McKenzie: " That is nob a compliment to Mr McKerrow." The Premier: " I should bo very Borry to do Mr McKerrow injustice, bub I have been told that when he was asked to take this position he pleaded his inexperience, and was told that the Governmenb looked to him to take it.

Mr Fergus: "IwillringupMrMcKorrow and undertake in half-an-hour's time to disprove that statement." The Premier protested against these unseemly interruptions, and hoped there would be no feeling shown in discussing this question. He knew that he was opposing the policy of Mr Fergus and other members of the late Government. If he were mistaken in his statement about the Chief Commissioner, he would be happy to withdraw it. He wenb on to say that the proposals of the Governmenb on this question had been long before tbe Houso and country, and he referred to newspaper criticisms and to the opinions of public men on the subjecb, bub ho added bhab bhe true exponenbs of public opinion were the members of this House. (A voice, •'No.") Well, he believed that a number now sitting there would nob be present next year (laughter), bub he reminded the Houso that of 14 members who voted againsb tho Railway Bill of 1887, 11 wero still in the House, while of 38 who voted for ib only some 19 remained. Mr Rolleston : " How did you vote?" The Premier: "I was one of a noble band of seven, whom the Leader of the presenb Opposition accused of '

STONEWALLING thai) Bill, and I voted againsb ib." Mr Seddon went on to say that the Ministry of 1887 had losb confidonce in itself, ond ivas afraid to trust the people. It was quite true, as he would be told, thab some of his presenb colleagues were bhen found voting for the transfer of the railways to Commissioners, bub they had nob their experience of the Bystem which was now available. The Commissioners had had a fair trial, and it was proved that opponents of the proposals of 1887 were entirely right. Then, again, many supported the Bill of 18S7 in bhe belief than an expert should be broughb from tho old country as Commissioner, and in this matter there had been

A GROSS VIOLATION OP UNDERSTANDING between Ministers and Parliament. He ventured to say thab Parliamenb would never havo passed the Bill had it been known that Messrs McKerrow, Hannay and Maxwell were to be Commissioners. (Hear, hear.) Nor would tho Bill havo become law had it been known whab salaries were to be paid bhese gentlemen. In both these | respeots faith had been broken with the people and with Parliament. {Hear, hear.) Tbey would, no doubb, be told in the course of this debate thab during the strike of three years ago tho Railway Commissioners bad by their action saved the colony from complete paralysis of trade. He held these gentlemen did nob deserve the {.lightest credib in thab connection. It was the members of this House whose influence had prevented railway employees joining in the strike, while the Commissioners by their action, as, for instance, ab Wesbporb, where they ordered their employees to load coal, caused exasperation and nearly produced a strike, j He said the Commissioners claimed credit lasb year for an increased percenbage of receipts, bub this claim, if analysed, would be seen to be unfounded. For example, the sum of £3,000 for Commissioners' salaries was not charged againsb railways as ib should be. Thon, there was a sum of £10,765 credited to railway revenue which oughb to be colonial revenue, being from tbe leasing of land, In addition, there were " workshops recoveries " amounting in three years to £26,000. and sales of stock £56,000. The " recoveries " were monies received by bhe Commissioners for work done in the workshops for outsiders, and this was nob railway revenue ab all, while practically they got double money for stock tbab was sold. When he was in Auckland he was informed that bheCbmmissionershad called tenders from different railway workshops for

CONSTRUCTION OF CARRIAGES, pitting tho workshops against oach other, and the Auckland offer being much lower than the others, was accepted. A sum of £14,000 was shown to have been expended for these carriages, but it was impossible to trace the subject so as to prove that stock to that amount was added to the railways. Then he would draw attention to the fact that last year the Commissioners had bad £15,000 unauthorised expenditure, which the Government had to meet without question; in fact the Railway Commissioners held, a power which would enable them to drive any Government out of office. They could reduce rates so as to derange Government finance; or, again, they could increase rates so as to inflict a grievous wrong on the country. They had power to produce either prosperity or adversity in different parts of tho colony. (Hear, hear.) Should these three gentlemen have powor to do What had been done at Oamaru. (Cries of "No") Did the Railway Commissioners tako into consideration whon they reduced rates over» particular part of line that they •were practically bringing about aefonlt, and injuring tho credit of the colony, lhat

was nover considered at all by these irresponsible persons. They considered nO thing bub that they were

COMPETING WITH A STEAMSHIP

SERVICE, and the resulb was that the districb had been injured to a large extent by what was, no doubt, intended for the bonotit of the colony. He also instanced what took place ab Greymouth and Westport, when the Commissioners reduced the freight of coal there, and he pointed oub that the Commissioners had power to cause both thes6 Harbour Boards to make default. Again, the Commissioners did not manage the railways so as to givo justice to remote country settlers. He instanced the farmers in Waipawa or Waikato districts, 150 miles from the market, and showed how ab currenb freights the whole profit on their produce was consumed by railway charges, and the farmer left with a loss. Ho also referred to the mistakon policy pursued in Canterbury, under which railway

TRUCKS WERE RUNNING EMPTY

whilo traction engines were carrying goods ovor roads alongside to the amounb of thousands of tons yearly. If tho Railway Commissioners wore men of common commercial experience, they would notallowthis to go on a day longer. (Hear, hear.) The policy of tho Commissioners had also the effect of causing large aggregations of population in cities, if they were to run workmen's trains, as was done in other parts of the civilised world, tho working men in our cities would spread themselves over tho country, and their health, comfort, and morals would thereby be improved. (Hear, hoar.) These facts and considerations went to show there was something demanding tho attention of the Legislature, and that ths railway question was nob merely ono of how much could be made on capital invested. Proceeding to examine the

FINANCIAL ASPECT OF THE QUESTION,

the Premier pointed oub thab lasb year the total earnings of our railways amounted to £1,181,551, and the neb profit was £449,380. This year the Commissioners estimated the total receipts at £1,176,000 and the nett profit ab £444,000. This was a decrease in each case of about £5,000, and yeb the Commissioners had thjs year addsd to working railways the Te Aro extension at Wellington, Kaihu Valley line, tho Maneaohaore section oi tho North Island railway, the Mokihinui line and the Greymouth-Hokitika line. Tho Commissioners ought to have added to their estimates of revenue the amounts that would be derived from tho working of those lines, which would hardly involve increased expenditure. He then referred to the increase in salaries of highly-paid officers of bho Railway Department, which were made withoub the knowledge or consent of Parliament, ab the very time ib was reducing bhe salaries of obher Civil servants. Ho complained of the form in which the Railway Estimates were broughb down, so thab details of expenditure were nob shown. Week after week Government had been called upon to give full details of its expenditure on cooperative and other work. (A member, "Quite right.") Well, if ib was quite righb so far as the Government was concerned, ib was also quite _ righb for the Commissioners to give details. No doubt, the House could call for returns, bub ib was necessary thab during the recess Ministers should havo'power to obtain full particulars as a right. He contended Parliament would nob do justice to itself unless it placed the Ministry of the day in that position. He wenb on to refer to the POSITION OF EMPLOYEES on tho railways. At tho presenb bime bhere waa general discontent amonfr these men from one end of the colony to another. (Hear, hear.) There had been unfair promotion. Young men, and men without special knowledge being advanced over the heads of men of experience and long service. There were other peculiar tactics employed at times. For instance, a clerk in a railway store discovered a storeman's peculations, and gavo information which led to inquiry. The charge was established, bub tho man who gave information was dismissed, while the one who peculated was promoted a member " to the terrace gaol."

The Premier: No. Promoted in the railway service. There was another unique case in which an employee in the railway workshops had worked in Government time with Governmenb material at a patent of his own, and when a fellow-worker in selfdefonco gavo information, the offender's services wero retained, while the other person was dismissed. That was the state of tho railway service to-day, for these were recent instances. Ib waa discreditable that such a state of things should exist and Parliament be powerless to prevenb it. He did not blame the Railway Commissioners, as in many cases ib was impossible for them to know whab was going on. He condemned bhe action of the Commissioners in spending money preparing exhibits for Chicago when Parlia- j menb had declined to vote money to send it, and in importing certain iron worth when they had costly machinery to prodnce ib in their own workshops. Large numbers of men had been discharged, bub tho same staff of highly-paid officials was continued. Tho Commissioners were allowing their ROLLING STOCK to fall into poor condition, so thab they might show apparenty good financial results of their management. He contended that there should be an independent aiidib of bho Railway Departmenb accounbs. (A member: "Whab aboub the Lands Department*!") Well, he was opposed to a separate audit for any departmenb, bub a special audib had been forced upon the Land Department, and the results had proved that the auditor had saved the colony his salary for twenty years to come. The time was ripe for reorganising the system of audit, and the first step was to bring the railway accounts under the general audit. The Premier then took the Bill and explained its clauses one by one. In reference to Clause 3, which provides for a Minister of the Crown being President of the

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, he eaid that it had been rumoured thab he coveted the position for himsolf. He assured the House that he would much rather be relieved of the duties of such a position. As to objections to any Minister being on the Board at all, he answered ib by pointing oub that thero wore Ministers on tho Public Trust and Governmenb Insurance Boards, and no one questioned bho dosirabiliby of their being there. Of how much moro importance then, would the presence of a Minister be on tho Railway Board, which dealt with so much larger sums of public money ? Section sof the Bill, which deals with

SUSPENSION OF COMMISSIONERS was mainly based, Mr Seddon said.&on a clause in' the Victorian Railway Acb of IS9I, only in Victoria they had «one much further. The Victorians had had troublo with their Commissioners such as we in New Zealand had never bad, and ho hoped never would have. As the law now stood here, in the caso of the services of Commissioners proving unsatisfactory wo had no means of dispensing with their services. If the Bill now before the Houso wero passed we should have power to suspend thorn. As to the amount for

SALARY OF COMMISSIONERS provided for in clause 6, ho considered tho maximum sum iixod on amply sufficient. Undor the existing law the Commissioners had power to tako land that may not be required for railway purposes tor years to come. Thoy may take such land, said Mr

Seddon, and they do take ib, and lease ib,' using bhe renbs derived from ib to swell the railway revenue. Section Bof the Bill pro-, videdagainsothat. He laid itdownthatonly the Governor or the Minister for Public Works could take land for railway purposes. Section 10 of tbe Bill provides thab bhe Minister may request the Commissioners bo propose a scheme for effecting an increase of income or a decrease of expenditure, and if he approves of the same m..y direct the Commissioners to carry ib oub. The Victorian Acb went much further in this matter, the Premier said. In it bhe question of policy was lefb enbirely in the hands of the Ministry of bhe day. Section 11 of the Bill would put a stop to largo orders being filled without firsb being TENDERED FOR PUBLICLY. Ab presenb, very large orders were senb Home by bhe Railway Deparbment, when competition for their fulfilment oughb bo have been invited. Local bodies, he poinbed out, were required to call tor tenders for supplies amounting in value to over £50. VVhy should the Railway Commissioners, then, have power to import their supplies from the Old Country without firsb calling for tenders. A great mistake had been made in this respect in the past, which the Bill proposed to remedy. Coming to clause 12, which deals with the power of the Commissioners to alter salaries, the Premier held thab the paymenb of higher officials should be under the control of Parliament as the clause provided.

THE RAILWAY ESTIMATES should bo laid beforo tho House in the same way as bho Public Works EstimatesIn regard to granting leave of absence, Mr Seddon considered greab loss was entailed on the country by bbc presenb system. When works wore not going on,_ ib had been the custom to give high official extended leave of absence, when thero ahould havo been a reducbion in the staff. The Bill took cognisance of this, and provided againsb it. Ib further provided for the transference of Civil servants from one department to another. Clause 16, he explained, was introduced to prevenb whab bad occurred at Westport. Ib was unfair, he considered, bhab coal companies should be placed in the position they were under the prosent railway laws. Under the new Bill a reduction of their tariffs could only be made with the sanction of the Minister. It would be his duby to see thab the interests of

COAL COMPANIES AND HARBOUR

BOARDS

were protected. Summing up his remarks on the measure, Mr Seddon said he hoped that honourable members would see the necessity for legislation, and dispel from their minds the idea which had been spread abroad thab there was any intention on the parb of the Governmenb to work the railways politically. The railways, he said, belonged to the people. They were established with public money, and ib was surely nob asking too much thab the people should have control of them again.

CRITICISM OF THE BILL. The Leader of the Opposition was the first to reply to the Premier. He characterised the latter's speech as an electioneering appeal by a stump orator, and full of wild assertions. Ib was his duby as Leader of the Opposition, no doubb, to do so. He then lamented that the Premier should have made tho accusations he did against men who wero absent, and had, therefore, no power to reply. He next regretted thab he had not the sources of information at his command which would enable him to reply to much that Mr Seddon had said. It was evident from tho Premier's speech, said Mr Rolleston, with meaning in evory syllable, as he fixed his eyes on Mr Seddon, thab thab honourable gentleman had a privato secret, and surreptitious information which ho had obtained behind the backs of thoso concerned. Still., withoub such informabion, bhe Leader of the Opposition seemed to find no difficulty in discovering an opening for A VIRULENT ATTACK on tho Premier's speech. He hoped, ho said, to convince members that the Bill did nob propose to reatoro the railways to the control of tho poople. They had never been token away, he contended, for they wero under the control of Parliamenb, which was the representative of the people. Mr Seddon had mado accusations against the Commissioners, said Mr Rolleston, which could nob be listened to withoub a feeling thab the Premier was influenced by strong personal animosity. He had condemned their management of the railways in exaggerated terms, had spoken of return to the old system. Was it nob a facb thab when bhe old system was in force the country rang from end to end with an outcry against

POLITICAL CONTROL OP RAILWAYS,

and did nob members from all the benches combine to make an Act to take the railways from the control of Ministers. That had been done, and the general intelligence of the country had regarded the change with favour. The intelligence of the country regarded' the proposals of tho present Bill with disfavour. Mr Rolleston then examined the clauses of the measure in detail, his criticism in mosb casea being severely adverse in its nature, and kepb up ab tho same time a running fire on bhe Premier's condemnation of the Commissioners. If thero was any discontent wibh tho present system ib ha* been formed by the Premier financially.

'! administering of our railways had ui»_u a success. Farmers generally were satisfied, there had been absoluto freedom from accident, and great impartiality in dealing with all classes of people. Tho system had not yet had fair play under the present Minister. They should give ib a fair trial. He would

MOVE AN AMENDMENT, "Thab in bhe opinion of bhe House ib is undesirable, on tho eve of a general elecbion, and until bhe counbry has had an opporbunity of expressing its I opinion on the matter, to make any radical alteration in the managomenb of bho Governmenb railways as proposed by the Bill, or in the personnel of the Railway Commissioners." SIR ROBERT STOUT'S VIEWS. Sir R. Stoub struck out in a perfectly independent line from that followed by his two predecessors in the debate. He refused to go into details, and took up a standpoint from which he could consider the proposals of the Bill in their bearing on larger issues than the government of railways. The question as to who should govern our railways, to his mind, involved a far more important question, namely, "Was our rJresent system of responsible Governmenb bo be continued ?" If the system of Boards was to be introduced we must be prepared to change our system of Government. The principle at the root of responsible Government was bhab for every Administrative Act some Minister was to bo responsible to Parliament. That was tho system in England in all parts of the Government, and in the navy and army the system of creating Boards independent of Parliament had beon tried in England, and had failed in every instance. In bis opinion the debato thab evening was one of the

STRONGEST ARGUMENTS AGAINST

BOARDS, for ib meant that the actions of a Board would be liable to criticism withoub any member of it having the opportunity to reply. In France, our present system had been tried in connection with the railways, and it had been found thero that the bestmanaged lines wero those where no experts were employed. In the end the system had broken down. The original Railway Act of New Zealand, Sir R. Stout said, gave the Commissioners more power than was granted to managers on English lines, or to

owners of railways in bhe United States. Handing over railways to Commissioners was practically an admission on our parb that governmenb by bhe people in the colony had been a failure. The fact ot our handing them over was proof that we were noo fit to manage them. The whole tendency was in the direction of an increase of State functions. Sir Roberb led the Honse mosb unmistakeably to understand that if he had his way the railways would be entirely in the hands of the State. In conclusion, he asked the House to look at the question from a broad point of view and ask themselves, "Is the Governmenb fit to control its own concerns through Parliament?" Ho expressed his willingness to aid in making the Bill a good, workable measure, and intimated thab in Committee he would introduce such amendments as he considered would have thab effecb.

Mr Richardson said thab the Premier had nob neglected to occupy plenty of time when moving the second reading of the Bill, and he thought it rather unfair to rush the Bill through the House at such a late hour of the night. It was mosb unreasonable after the work that they had done that week to force on such an important Bill as that now before them. He read reports of several interviews between the Premier and the railway servants, and stated that the Premier's action With respect to those interviews was planned to fan discontent between the Commissioners and railway employees. He held it would bo much better to come back to the old state of affairs, when the Minister of the day waß responsible to Parliamenb, than to have this half-and-half affair. The presenb Governmenb would nob always be on those benches, and the next election might result in such a turn over as would Bend Minisbers over to the Opposition benches. He held it was a mosb improper thing bhat a Minister should havo tho power of veto in a matter of this kind. _ If- tho presenb Governmenb remained in power who would be Minister on the Board? Why bhe presenb Premier, who by his speech bhab nighb appeared bo be ready bo undertake the duties of Colonial Treasurer as well as all his other duties. He referred to several statements made by the Premier, and said thab his principal reason for rising to speak was to express his disapproval of the Bill, and to bring into prominence the differenb attitudes assumed by the Premier to separate tho railway conferences in Wellington. Air Sandford moved the adjournment of bhe debabe until Monday at half-pasb two p.m., which was agreed to. The Houso roso ab 1.25 a.m.