HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Press, Volume L, Issue 8591, 19 September 1893, Page 6

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Monday, September 18. . AFTERNOON SITTING. The House met at 2.30 p.m. railways act. Mr SANDFORD resumed the debate on the Government Railways Act Amendment BllL He said that after the admirable speech delivered by Sir R. Stout on the Bill, the principle of the measure should be fairly established in the minds of hon. members. There was no doubt at all in his mind that when the Railways Bill was passed the control of the railways was handed over to irresponsible persons, and if there had been any doubt in his mind as to the desirability of making a change in the management of our railways it had been dispelled by the return laid on the table of the House. They had ih fact to ask the Commissioners for any information they wanted. He found that they had now twenty-oue more officers drawing salaries of .£2OO and over than they had in 1889, and the total difference in salaries between 1889 and the present year was £3869. This showed that the retutns furnished to the House were very misleading. He read a large quantity of statistics to prove that the railway service as carried oa by the Commissioners was greatly overmanned. He charged tho Commissioners also with having given to the House as little information as they possibly could, and he said there had been an enormous waste of time in the railway workshops owing to the over-officialdom of the service. The present Bill simply provided that whilst there should be Railway Commissioners, there should also be some member of the Ministry ou the Board who should be directly responsible to the House for railway management. He asserted that the ■mall farmers and manufacturers of the colony were dissatisfied with the present system of railway management. The small farmers complained that they were virtually handicapped out of the market by the heavy rates of freight, whilst a similar complaint was made by the manufacturers. He thought the present Bill did not go far enough, as if the three other Commissioners'on the Board agreed upon any particular course the Minister would be powerless. Mr MITCHELSON agreed that the Bill was a most important one, but at the same tune he disaj/reed with Ls provisions. He "together disagreed -.vii;L the statement that the Houbo, ha-, ing h«ard Sir R. Stout's speech, must be convinced of the necessity lor a chance in railway management. There was no doubt at all that Mr Sandford had dealt with the Bill altogather in the interests of his Christoharch constituents. As to Sir R. Stout's

speech, that hon. gentleman was up in the j clouds in referring to the question, aud he I had dealb with it from the standpoint that , the State must control everything. He ! pointed out that Sir R. Stout himself, j whilst Premier, had on more than one occa- ', sion pub iuto the Governor's speech para- j graphs referring to the desirability of con- ; stituting Railway Boardsof Management, but j nothing had come of it. He (Mr Mitchelson) \ ! held that no reasonable man would object j to a Minister having a seat on the Board so I long as he had not the power to veto any \ particular question ; and it would be in the I i interests of the colony it a Minister had ; such a position without the right of vetoing, j Referring to the Premier's speech of Friday j night, he sail they all must admit that it j i was simply a two hours' attack on the j Commissioners. Mr Seddon professed to be a demociat, but he was in reality an autocrat, as he wanted to seize all the power to manage the railways, and the whole of his speech was simply meant to secure the votes |of tlie working men at the general elect iou. jMr Sedduu had referred to the Railway Boards in other colonies. So far as he could learn the Board iv New South Wales had been j an absolute success, and if Victoria had been able to secure tlie services of three strongminded men the same as the New Zealaud Commissioners the railway management iv that colony would have been more successful. •He paid a high tribute to the ability of the Railway Commissioners, especially Messrs Maxwell aud H-nuay. It was true that Mr McKerrow had no previous railway experience, but he was possessed of much valuable information owing to his former position, aud was a man of very high character. He did not think the present Bill would work at all, as owing to tiie perpetual changing of Alinisters there would probably be a constant change of railway uolicy. He defended tlie Railway Bill of 1887, for which he was partly responsible, but he pointed out that there were three of the present Ministers who voted for that Bill, namely, Messrs Reeves, McKenzie, and Carroll, but it was true that tlie Premier voted against it. He should like to ask the Premier who the people were who objected to the Railway Commissioners. The cry fpr their abolition came solely from the workmen of the colony. The commercial men and farmers of the community were quite satisfied with the Commissioners' manugemeut and they were decidedly opposed to the political control of railways. He (Mr Mitchelson) gave a distinct denial tothe Premier's statement that Mr McKerrow had been forced to take the position of Chief Commissioner of the Railways. The facts were that when the position was offered to Mr McKerrow by Sir H. Atkiusou, he informed the Premier thab he would like to consider the matter for a few hours, and next morning he told Sir H. Atkinson he had decided lo accept ib. There was no force whatever iv the matter, as abated by Mr Seddon, who had evidently wanted the House to uudevstaud that if Air McKerrow did not accept the position he would have to leave the service [Mr BUCKLAND— That's whab this Governmenb would have done]. He (Mr Mitchelson) defended at some length the administration of the Railway Commissioners, and said thab notwithstanding what had been asserted by the Premier aud other sneakers bhe rolling stock and permanent way were in better condition now than for a long time pasb. They had also very materially reduced freights and the rates of travelling, aud the unauthorised expenditure of the Commissioners was also according to the Act. The Premier, in his opinion, had all through his speech contrived to show the Railway Commissioners in a most unfair light, and he had not given them credit for satisfactory management in any direction. He pointed out that the increase of revenue for the last foui years was £118,000 over that of the previous four years, whilst the increased expenditure had only been £24,000. This showed that the Commissioners had exercised careful management, especially when it was remembered that a large addition of political railway lines had been made. Notwithstanding this they would be able to return a better per-centage than when the railways were managed by the Governmenb, and bhis effecbually disposed of Mr Sandford's charges that the Commissioners had been guilty of reckless extravagance. Mr Seddon had also referred to the unsatisfactory auditing of the rail- , way accounts, bub he asked who it was that ; tried to do away with the Audit Depart- ■ menb altogether ? Why, the very men thab now sat on the Governmenb benches. He again asserted that the Premier had not in any sense attempted to give the Commissioners fair play, and he also asserted that bhe Commissioners had done their best, in the interests of the colony. If the Bill passed in its present form the Commissioners would simply be the creatures of the Government, with no minds of their own, and in that case the country would do much better to reverb to the former system of management than to pass a Bill that gave a Minister absolute control over the Commissioners. He did nob think it desirable to revert to the old system, and thought the most reasonable course for the Government to take would be to re-appoint the Commissioners for another year and leave the new Parliamenb to deal with the question. If they agreed to let the electors decide the question, Mr Rolleston would withdraw his amendment, bub if bhe Govecnment persisted in going on wibh the Bill, they would fiud the debate on ib would occupy a long time, and the business of the House would not proceed so satisfactorily as they desired. He should feel compelled to vote againsb the second reading. Mr EARNSHAW agreed thab the question should nob be discussed from a party point of view ; ib was a quesbion of fundamental principle in which the Opposition had as much interest as the Government side of the House. He admitbed that the Commissioners had done the best according to their lights, aud lie questioned very much whether au expert from Home would have done any hetber thau the Commissioners. He had carefully gone through the authorities and could fiud _o support for the present system of bureaucratic absolutism. He should therefore support the Bill, although ib did not go rar enough, and he could not vote for Mr Rolle3ton's amendment. The Bill was in the right direction, and in support of that he quoted from several authorities to show thab under responsible Governmenb auy system of absolutism was unsound in every i respect. He held, however, that whether tLey reverted to the old system of management or retained the present system they would have to appoint a Board to adjust the grievances of' Railway men. He deprecated the political influence possessed by the Railway Commissioners, especially ab the time of a general elecbion, and said ib was utterly wrong thab the Commissioners should have the coutrol of twenty millions of property and the practical control of fifteen thousaud votes. He was not particularly favourable to the Bill and thought the best plan would be to repeal the present Acb altogether, and leb the country decide ou the best form of railway management. Lt, however, this Bill did nob pass the House at present the Premier would have power to remove these Coin- ■ missionersand appoint three others of his choice. He warned the Opposition therefore that in opposing this Bill they would probably he hoisted with their owu petard. He had no personal feeling against the Commissioners, and he held that auy three men in their place would act in the same absolute manner as they had done. He expressed his opinion that the management of Railway Commissioners had not been a success in any colony where it hid been tried, and their expenditure had been of a lavish description. It was notorious also that the great majority of the bridges in the colony were unsafe for railway traffic. j He regretted that Mr Rolleston had moved his amendment, as it could effect no good purpose; and he also regretted that the Government had not taken the bolder course of repealing the present Act altogether.

Mr BUCKLAND had no doubt that the majority at the Premier's back would carry this Bill in some shape, but he felt that the people of the colony would not approve of it. He was convinced that the Government could not appoint, three other Commissioners when the term of office of the present ones expired. His opinion was, although he might be wrong, that the Commissioners could go ou till their successors were appointed. If the present Government appointed three other men he felt sure the Auditor-General would nob oass accounts for their payment. He thought the colony should have a grateful feeling to the Commissioners for the action they had taken in the strike that occurred two or three years ago. He admitted that there might be some better

mode of communication between the House ' and Commissioners, but be pointed out that l since 1887 there were 165 miles more of railway open. In 1887 the House had voted i £726,000 for railway purposes; whilst this I year, with 165 miles more of line to >. manage, they had voted £729.000, < or only £3000 more than iv 1887. ' The revenue also since 1887 was ' largely increased, and could any one say, in i j tlie iace of facts suck as these, that tbe I I Railway Commissioners had not managed j the railways well. He held it was impos- I sible for any Minister to explain the details j iof the Railway Department in addition to I his other duties. Mr Sandford had com- ■ ' plained that the House could not obtain any j returns from the Railway Commissioners, j | but how could they rely ou those re- j turns when papers were abstracted j from them before they reached the j House ? Mr Sandford was also very j eloquent iv denouncing the travelling | expenses of railway officers, but how was it ] the member for Christchurch did not demand that the travelling expenses of the Ministers he was supporting, which amouuted to a far larger amount, were not | laid on the table ? Tne fact was, Mr Sand- j ford was very virtuous aboub railway officers j spending the sixpences, but he allowed i the pounds spent by the Government to I escape his criticism altogether. The only line of railway that he was familiar with j —that from Remuera to Auckland —was, i he felt sure, managed efficiently siuce the ' Commissioners took it over, and he believed the permanent way from Auckland to Cam- j bridge was in a better condition thau wuen the Commissioners took office. Mr Earn- i shaw had spoken about bridges being unsafe, bat had the Government maintained their bridges satisfactorily? He asserted that the Railway bridges and permauenb way were in good condition under the Commissioners' management. He thought, in view of the election coming on, they should be very careful in rushing into any new scheme of railway management. The people of Auckland feit absolute confidence in the Commissioners. The only places where they wanted a change was in such places as Greymouth, where they would like to use the railways for nothing. He was couvinced that the Bill was only brought in to secure political capital for the Government iv tlie coming elections. The debate was interrupted by the 5.30 adjournment.