THE HUNTLY DISASTER

Auckland Star, Volume XLV, Issue 263, 4 November 1914, Page 7

THE HUNTLY DISASTER

PANG THE RESPONSIBILITY. . PREMIER'S ALLEGATION. AGAINST INSPECTING ENGINEER BAKES STORM OF PROTEST. iS ARREST PROBABLE. (R T Telegraph.-rarllamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, Tuesday. The second reading of the Coal Mines Amendment Bill having been earned on Z voices, the House went into committee and some warm discussion enS on the question of responsibility for the Huntly disaster. On the new clause (4a). inserted by lhc Mines Committee, providing for the Ippointment by the Public Service Com; Xioaer of a "chief inspector of mines ArTWilford (Hutt) moved as an amendment that the Commissioner "may ™ Lt a person to bo inspecting en£er of mines, who, by virtue of his shall he chief inspector oi mines." S object of the amendment, Mr Wilr~ d said was to ensure that Mr Reed, it nresent inspecting engineer of mines, should not be debarred from retaining Si position as inspecting engineer ol mines. Members of the Opposition insisted that the House should make it dear that Mr Eeed should not he dependent upon reappointment by the Public Service Commfesioner. v Mr Webb (Grey) *said that Mr Reed -v a man of exceptional ability The Honse should say. "Mr Reed is not to be raerificed," and it should tell the Public service Commissioner this. Certain people desired to get rid of Mr Reed. PREMIER'S POINT OF VIEW. The 'Prime Minister, in commenting on Mr Reed's action in regard to the Huntly Bines, said that, according to his own evidence, he was aware of the danger long before the accident happened, and yet be took no action. An Opposition member: He is an inspector of State mines. Mr. Massev: He is an inspector of mines and has the right to go down any mine in any part of New Zealand. He said that he was aware of the danger months before the accident happened. Ho moke about a holocaust then, knowing the danger. Why, in heaven's name, did he sot order the mine to be closed ? Mr. Wilford: He had not that power. Mr. Massey: Well, if 1 was an inspector of mines and I knew there was danger in a mine I would be there as fast as I could get there and I would take the proper steps. Mr. Wilford: Mr. Heed had no defined duties. He reported six times to the Under-Secretary, wiio is required to do it. . Mr. laitt (Christchurch North); Why did not the Mines Department ask him to go to the mine when it got his report? Mr. Massey: X am not here to defend the Department, That is for the Minister toeipliui. Mr. Wilford said that Mr. Reed had the power to go into any mine, but he hnxl not tie power to order anything to be done either by the manager or by tlie district inspector. Mr. Reed had no power to order the mine to be closed down, or even to order safety lamps to be used. Mr.Massey: What does he do? FEARLESS AND CONSCIENTIOUS. Mr. Wilford said that the official reports of the Mines Department would show »'hat fir. Piecd'a duties were. Mr. Kecd vas an able, fearless and conscientious man who had given up a position in West Australia worth £1.500 a year, and had come to New Zealand on account of bis health. He (Mr. Wilford) knew that Mr. Eeed never slept the night before he gave his evidence at Huntly, as he was thinking about the evidence he was going to give neit day. "I know," Mr. Wilford continued, "that he felt that he was going to be tacked, but he said that he did not care because be jras going to tell the truth. This man had done his duty. He had bad tbe fear oi something happening at Huntly on his mind for weeks and weeks, ever since he jjscovered at the Auckland School of Mines that there was gas at Huntlv. He told the coroner at Huntly what evidence he had to give, but he was never mlbd. fiwas Mr. Reed who found out about the ™ls and knocked the bottom out of the Taupiri Company's defence." The amendment moved by Mr Wilford was carried on the voices, an alteration tong made, on the Minister's motion,, to ensure that the two unices referred to should apply to -coal mines." : The clause as amended was adopted, «ad the hill passed through Committee. Mr,Wilford, speaking on the motion ] lor .he third reading of the bill, said I Wat he could not understand why an "rest and charge of manslaughter was net made within sis hours after tbe "port of the Royal Commission was out. «i ras!>r: You heard mc say that »st question had been referred 'to the Crown law officers. M Wilford: I woidd not refer it to we Crown law officers. Mr Fr.is»r: if TOU , vere a Minister Tiiu-would Mr. Wilford read an extract from the Y>mmission's report which, ]i r said, dis- , closed gross negligence, yet the Minister ! m "ely said that the matter bad been "'"red to the Crown law officers. If ™. Min ister had seen- what he, Mr ""ford, had seen at Huntly he would not wonder at him speaking strongly, . , Massey: The Minister was there fcforc you were there. Mr Wilford said that there had been f oaj negligence on the part of the manS=nient (lf the mine, which could not Possibly he answered. Of the 14 charges 38* be. had formulated against the Company on behalf of the ""Mrs, 13 had been held by the Commisa<m to be proved. The. fourteenth, which " ad "ference to the explosives, was Passed over because no shots were tired °n the morning of the explosion. Mr Wilford also spoke of the alleged ■wrroram of Huntly. and said that the Persons who gave, evidence against the company went to him secretly after dark. S m ? nt '0 make their statements to "»• If the present, bill bad been passed ™ let .v lamps would have had to have SF* >n use, and the accident would not «T| happened. He could not see how thfMi ai3ter could do other but admit «tt the. accident was a preventable one. THE MINISTER IN REPLY. file Minister of Mines, in his reply, m that Mr Wilford had attempted to c Government was response for the accident. It was nothing ™»c or less than an attempt to make 2£r*l ont of a- deplorable ■¥»|Bi» In, apai,yng front thp QQIIHBi>-

| sion's report, Mr Wilford quoted such ' portions as suited him, and omitted those portions which did not suit him. An attempt had .been made to show that if the present bill had been passed last i year the accident would not have happened, but this was not correct. The Commission itself was ver3' clear on that point, as it distinctly stated that there was sufficient provision in regard to safeguards under the present Act to have prevented the accident. As Minister of Mines, he had taken every step that he should have taken when he returned the reports from Inspector Bennie and Mr Reed to the Under-Secretary. H e fully expected that the company would have been asked to do what was necessary, and that if it did not comply action would be taken against it. lip did not know that the inspector was going to consult a private solicitor. Ho thought that the opinion of the Crown law officers ought to have been taken. The Under-Secretary had said that his re- ; quest for approval of action referred i only to the concluding paragraph in Mr Reed's letter, advising that a prosecution be instituted subject to favourable legal • advice. He did not know of this at the time. It was not until after the explosion that he discovered that the prosecu- , tion which he thought he had authorised had not been instituted. The bill was put through its final stages. SCOPE OF TILE COMMISSION. On a formal motion to authorise , printing of the Royal Commission's report, Mr Webb asked whether it was intended to extend tho scope of the Commission to enable it to inquire into the charges of victimisation at Huntly mines. The report made it quite clear that the inspection of the mine by tlie workmen's inspectors had been valueless. He also asked whether the Prime Minister would take steps to protect workmen in ] the future, especially those at Huntly, from victimisation. CHARGE OP MANSLAUGHTER. Mr Massey said that in all probability within a day or two there would be an arrest on a chaTge of manslaughter. It would be a most improper thing to have another inquiry flying on at the same time. "As to victimisation."' said Mr Massey, "I do not know what the lion, gentleman means. lam deadly opposed to anything ill the way of victimisation." Mr Robertson: Your action does not show it. Mr Massey: There is nothing to showthat I ever favoured victimisation. If there is anything I can do to prevent victimisation, it will be done. Mr Robertson referred to statements made by him on previous occasions regarding the formation of an alleged "bogus union" at Huntly- He asserted that the union was the creation of the company, and that it was joined by tbe agents of the company, and he challenged the Prime Minister to state what ho knew about the formation of the union. "In my opinion," he concluded, "this disaster was the direct logical outcome of the formation of the bogus union and the victimisation following upon it." The motion for the printing of the report was carried.