EVENING SITTING.

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

EVENING SITTING.

The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.' ELECTORAL BILL. Sir J. HALL asked the Premier whether the Electoral Bill had beeu sent to the Governor for signature. Mr SEDDON said ib would be sent to his Excellency next morning. RAILWAY BILL. Mr FISH resumed the debate on the Government Railways Bill. He said he had no doubb that if they handed the railways over to the Government they would hear jusb as mauy complaints as they now heard agaiust the Commissioners. He freely confessed that the management of the railways should be broughb into closer touch with Parliament; in fact, the railway estimates mighb jusb as well nob be broughb before bhe House at all, as the House could not, under the preseub conditions, discuss bhem intelligenbly. His opinion was that bhe presenb Bill utterly failed to bring the railways into closer touch with the House, and that ib was inbended to put the whole coutrol of the department into the hands of the Minister for Public Works. The late Government, he held, must have had good reasons for giving up the control of the railways to the Commissioners, and when they considered that the Railway Bill of 1887 was carried by a very large majority in the House, it followed that that must have expressed the wishes of the people at thab time. He maintained that, as the general elections were ao close upon them, they would be doing well to postpone thisquestiou forthe consideration of the electors at bhab contest. Although he had no wish to appear as an apologist for the Railway Commissioners he thought their management had not been so bad as to justify the House in passing a drastic Bill of this kind. He would, no doubb, be twitted with speaking very differently three years ago, bub circumstances had changed since then, and although the Commissioners had done some injudicious things, he thought that on the whole the majority of the raUway servants approved of the present rule. He was not aware that the Commissioners refused to hear any genuine grievances from the men. [Mr Tanner—We are, though]. Oh ! no doubt there were three tailors of Tooley street again. Well, he thought he had just as much opportunity of observing as the member for Heabhcote had, and he did nob think the Commissioners would refuse to hear men's grievances. This Bill practically meant that the Premier would rule the Railway Department Thab hon. geubleman was already Premier, Minister for Public Works and, lately, he had undertaken the important portfolio of the Native Minister, besides being the head of the Defen.e Department. These were four important Departments, and was ib reasonable bhat bhe Premier could undertake another important office such as this Bill would thrust upon him ? It would be absolutely impossible for him to do so. They mighb rest on it as absolutely certain thab, whilst this Government existed Mr Seddon and no other Minister would be Commissioner of Railways, and he could nob possibly undertake the task with all his other duties. He asserted that the rates charged by the Commissioners were on the whole reasonable, and were far less than whab they had to pay before railways were established. He would have supported the repeal of the presenb Act altogether rather than assent to the present Bill, which would make the Minister of Public. Works absolute master of the railways. The Minister would have no difficulty iv finding a creature of his own, as one of the Commissioners, so that with his (Mr Seddon's) deliberative and casbing vote, the other two Commissioners would be powerless to oppose anything the Minister mighb desire. He appealf»c_io the House not to pass such a perfect snam of a Bill as that now before them, and he hoped members would rise superior to party and in name of common sense vote against the ibem.

Mr SMITH hearbily supported the Bill. He had nothing to say against the Commissioners, who had always received him in a gentlemanly and courteous manner, but he disapproved of Parliameub divesbing ibself of the conbrol of a great national property such as the railways. He warmly supported the Bill, and said if ib were stonewalled in Committee they, on the Governmenb side, had quite as much backbone to carry it through as the Opposition had.

Mr DUTHIE said the Premier had never ceased for the last three years to hurl these charges against the Railway Commissioners, and he had endeavoured to stir up feeling against them by repeatedly saying he could get no information from them. They saw, however, a night or two ago that the Commissioners had furnished him with the fullest details of their estimates for the guidance of the House. He defended the Commissioners from the several charges made by the Premier. He held that the increase of earnings by the Commissioners showed their management had been successful. His opinion was thab in arranging rates the Commissioners had acted very judiciously, aud had given due consideration bo the requirements of the country. As to the use of traction engines in Canterbury they would continue to be used even if the railway rates were reduced one-halt The engines belonged to station owners, and could be used without any special cost. It should be remembered thab railways had great difficulty in competing In short distance traffic. If the Premier had no better grounds than the charges he had made against the Commissioners no good reason could be shown for changing the present system of management. He held thab the Commissioners had established a good service, and, notwithstanding what had been said about high charges, he thought the rates for goods traffic were as low, mile for mile, as they were in England. The Premier had told them that that the working men were discontented with the present state of things, but the fact was that tbe Premier himself had never lost an opportunity of stirring up discontent amongst the men, and the wonder was that the Commissioners could can y on at all owing lo thisstate of things. There was no doubt that ii this Bill passed and Mr Seddou got coutrol of the railways, half of the present employees would be discharged to make room for friends of the Government. This Bill really put the whole power into the hands of the Ministers of the day, and that was not a

satisfactory solution of the matter. He agreed at the same time that some improvement might be made, and be approved ot such Committee being appointed as suggested by Mr Rolleston to' investigate as to the best me* hod of management. ' Mr TAYLOR condemned the banding over of the largest Department of the State to three irresponsible persons. The Bill did not provide for placing the permanent Minister lor Public Works on the ! Board, but those that came after bun. He should support the Bill, because he believed it would notonlv be in the Aiterests cf the Commissioners, but also of l-\s people wno i worked for the Commissioners. I Mr G. HUrCiil'SON said MV Rolleston;s proposal was oue which commeuded itself to the House, and he would have supported it iif he thought it practicable. It must be | admitted that the Bill of 1887 was passed for one proposal aud used for another, and it was never contemplated that the preI sent regime should be established. The Ac t of' 1887 was obviously intended as au experiment ontv, but nowhere in the Act could it be found that power was was given for the appointment of three new Commissioners. They were not aware whether j the present Commissioners would accept a I renewal of office for six or twelve mouths, and if legislation was nob passed this session, the Act of ISB7 would shortly cease to be in operation, aud they would ha?e to reverb bo bhe position they were in before the Act of 1887 was passed. He did not bhink it ab all likely thab people would go back to the position of affairs which existed before they made the change in 1887. He held it was intolerable that threequarters of a million of money should be expended entirely without the control of Parliament. The Commissioners had iucreased certain salaries also iv opposition to the distinct wish of Parliament. Three gentlemen had control of over one-bhird of the revenue of the colony, a circumstance that was absolutely unconstitutional. Supposing the Commissioners took some course by which the revenue would fill seriously where would the Colonial Treasurer be ? It was to the credit of the Commissioners that they had not made auy sudden change, but that was no reason why the. colony should continue to slumber on the briuk of a volcauo. He. was convinced, therefore, of the absolute necessity of Parliamentary control, aud he also thought thai the administration of of . the' Commissioijers had . nob been altogether a success, and thab they frequently ignored bhe mosb reasonable resolutions. He asserbed also that bhere was much discontent among the railway employees with the Commissioners' rule. He was nob committed to aii the details of the Bill, and he did not understand that the Bill would give the Minister the righb of veto. Dr. NEWMAN advised Mr Seddon to be more careful of bhe charges he so consbantly made against the Railway Commissioners or some day an action for libel would be brought against him, which even a Prime Minister might' not care to defend. The Premier had stated thab he had no control over the Railway Estimates, yet in the face of thab he accepted an amendment bo reduce those Esbunates by £5. He thought the Commissioners had, on the whole, done their work very weli. As for the present Bill, he would have preferred the Treasurer to be a member of bhe Board instead of bhe Miuister for Public Works. The reason for appointing Commissioners was because pressure was pub on Ministers day after-day which made ib a necessity to appoint a Board. The Bill was part of the Government policy, " Spoils to the victors," which the present Government thoroughly believed in. It would be idle to deny that railway travelling was much easier now than in the past, and he believed Mr Maxwell had made more useful reforms than any other man in the service. They were always being cold that the railways.should be managed on commercial principles. He thought the Government advocating it had some axe to grind. One reform he would like to see, namely, that all our railways should be run on a uniform tariff.

Mr BRUCE protested against the Bill, and said he had never heard such a vulnerable speech as that delivered by the Premier. He had never heard thab bhe desire for this Bill emanated from bhe producers of . the country; who then had it emanated from ? The reason no complaints came from the manufacturers or producers of the colony was because they were on the whole satisfied wibh the presenb condibion of things. He had ib from bhe best judges in the matter that the people did not want political influence agaiu introduced into our railways. His opinion was that those Commissioners who were selecbed by the previous Ministry had acted wibh credib to the colony, and particularly so with respecb to the strike that occurred some two or three years ago. He noticed that the Government side of the House twitted bhe Opposition wibh being apologists for the Commissioners, bub he held bhat they required no apology, Mr Hutchison's spsech was inconsistent, as in one breath he said the question should be settled this session; whilst in anobher breabh he advocabed referring the matter to the electors of the colony. If the Bill were passed Mr Seddon would undoubbedly be the absolute dictator on the Railway Board, and he (Mr Bruce) should like to know what qualifications the Premier had for a position of this kind.

Mr HOGG supported the Bill, and condemned the management of the Commissioners. He thought the expression of opinion on the part of the public was against the Commissioners being allowed to keep control of the railways, and he held that such a large 1 amounb of national property should not be vr. the hands of three irresponsible meu.

Mr WRIGHT, like other members, had some grievance against the Commissioners, and if bhe Bill before the House offered any prospect of redress he should vote for ib. Bub he saw no such prospect in the Bill. Mr Hutchison had sbabed that he saw no provision for veto by the Minister in the Bill, but he held that clause 10 gave tbe distinct power of veto. If the charges made by Mr Seddon againsb the Commissioners were true there was ample grounds for the Premier suspending them, but if they were not substantiated they should never have been made. He asserbed that the greatesb cry against the Railway Commissioners came from Auckland, a district which contributed less from railways than any obher district in the colony. He mighb say that al Ministers of Public Works up to that time, with the exception of Sir John Hall, were in favour of the Commissioners, but for various reasons they were not put in charge of the railways till the Act of 1887 waapassed. He held that they fully justified their appointment. After referring in detail to the charges made by the Premier against the Commissioners, he denied -that unfair promotion had been made in the service.

Mr BUICK thought that if the Premier became a member of the Railway Board he would be an excellent officer. He was opposed to the power of veto, and would vote against the Bill if it were retained. Ample power of veto was given in section 10 of the Bill. He thought the Commissioners had done exceedingly well under difficult circumstances, but the real success of the railways depended on the prosperiby of the colony rather than upon tbe personnel of the management. He did nob think the Government was wise in bringing down such a drastic Bill, and in Committee he should endeavour to amend it in the direction he had indicated.

Mr BUCHANAN deprecated the atbacks made by Mr Seddon on the Commissioners, and said his conducb in this respsct was very unmanly. The statement that Mr McKerrow had accepted his present position under protest was incorrect. As to the objection thab protracted leave bad been given to certain officers there could not, he claimed, be betber expenditure of money than that employed in sending officers Home to watch the latest developments in railway management. Mr SAUNDERS thought all that had been said by the Premier against the Commissioners had been replied to over and over again. He was saw nothing but mischief in the Bill, and he would oppose it at every stage. It would substitute a political changing uninformed head for the experience of the Commissioners. He would rather see the presenb Acb repealed and Ministers boldly assume the responsibility of the management of the railways. If the Bill were carried there would be no alternative but for the Commissioners to resign.