PROMOTIONS IN RAILWAY WORKSHOPS.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 11945, 14 July 1904, Page 5

PROMOTIONS IN RAILWAY WORKSHOPS.

'♦' ' ■ ALLEGATIONS OF FAVOURITISM. CONFLICT BETWEEN MR TAYLOR AND MR SEDDON. (special, to "not r-axss.") WELLINGTON, July 13. There waa a heated discus—ion in the House this afternoon on some remarks made fey Mr Taylor regarding favouritism in the Addington workshops. Mr Taylor said there was a deal of irritation in some of tlie workshops of the colony because of the irregular way in which promotion was made. Then© was no principle, and no .system. Casual employees were promoted i and young men who were paid less, but were entrusted with more important work were passed over because they were not on the right side of somebody or on the right side of some church. There were instances of men in tho Addington workshops who, for small offences, had been dismissed and had never been, reinstated, while others who had been dismissed for drunkenness and theft had been reinstated. Mr McGowan strongly repudiated the charges of unfairness made by Mr Taylor against his colleagues Sir Joseph Ward. He called upon Mr Taylor to withdraw his remarks. Mr Taylor said he would withdraw nothing. If Mr McGowan, wished for the names of the men and particulars, he (Mr Taylor) would bo glad to supply them. He did not mako any charge Against Sir Joseph Ward, who waa not necessarily responsible for the favouritism complained of. Mr McGowan quoted, from a foolscap sheet, handed to him by the Premier, the actual words used by Mr Taylor. Mr Tayjor—-"That's auite right." He added that the Minister" for Railways had admitted to a deputation that men had been reinstated as mentioned, and that he had not been consulted. Mr Seddon at a later stage sold Mr Taylor had accused Sir Joseph Ward of partiality in connection with the employment of men in the Addington workshops. It was 'about timo that someone spoke plainly about Mr Taylor's charges, and he would not be doing his duty if he did not defend his colleague, who was absent from the House. It was because, ho belonged to a particular denomination that he was assailea, but no one could say that because he belonged to that denomination ho had used his influence in favour of members of it. The member for Chrirtchurch waa not unselfish nor impartial in tliis matter. Mr Taylor could not deny that he himself had relatives in these workshops, and he might bo doing them an injustice in speaking as be had done. The Minister for Railways was above that sort of thing. Mr Taylor, however, knew that the Minister for Railways waa away, and that the charges he (Mr Taylor) had made would get a4B hours start. He (the Premier) would not therefore be deserving of his position if he allowed these statemeida to get 48 hours artarb without being challenged. Let Mr Taylor bring his charges and there would be an investigation, and he would bo proved in the wrong. If Mr Taylor referred to the men who were found broaching cargo then ho (Mr Seddon) said he waa entirely wrong, for these men were not of a particular denomination. Mr Taylor, by way ol personal explanation, read from his "Hansard" proof to show that he had cot mentioned Sir Joseph Ward's name. Mr Seddon said ho had had Mr Taylor's words taken down. He proceeded to read from the same paper quoted from by Mr McGowan. Mr Taylor, who was following the reading, with his "Hansard" proof before him, interjected: "You have got my '-fanaard' proof there. You have no right to it." Mr Seddon denied that he had Mr Tay- , lor'a "Hansard" proof. The report, he said, was supplied to him by his secretary. Mr Taylor: "I don't believe it." Mr Seddon: *_ got this from my secretory." Mr Taylor:" "Ye* and he got it from 'Hansard.'" Mr Seddon: "No." Mr Taylor explained that no relative of his had been employed by the Government since he had entered public life. A relative of his had got into the workshops many years before, and he was there npw, so it was childish of the Premier to make a remark like that, H« raised the point of order that the Prcmier'fi ••secretary or any other Minister's secretary had no right to get copies of the'"Hansard" proofs before they came into the poesearic- of members. 'What the Premier had read was co absolutely dose to the uncorrected proof of his speech that he (Mr Taylor) had before him, .that he had no doubt it w»* obtained from the ''Hansard office. Thus, before his speech came back to him Mr Seddon had received a oopy of what he had easd. He asked the Speaker whether it was proper that any Minister's secretary should have tha right to go to the "Hansard" staff and intercept members' speeches. •Mr Seddon: "Mr Thompson, my secretary, is n shorthand writer, and he took tlie notes here and came to mc and read to mc what Mr Taylor had said." Mr Taylor: "If Mr Thompson will give the House an assurance tliat he took that report it is all right. I challenge him, because I don't think he did, whatever he eaya." The Speaker ru!ed that It was not In accordance with the mages and customs of Parliament for any member to obtain copies of a report of members' speeches. He, however, understood the Premier to state- distinctly that he did not- get tho report from that source a all. Mr Taylor: "Mr Thomp~Mi would not say that, sir." (Cries of "Chair! Chair 1") The Speaker: "The hon. member has no right to make that remark. Tbe Premier's etatement must be accepted.'' Tlie Premier said that Mr Taylor's remarks ajbout iir Jackson Palmer were given to him <by hns »ecretary. Mr Taylor: "I am not apeaking about Jackson 'palmer. I am speaking of the railway matter." To this retort the Premier made no reply, and the matter was allowed to drop. The following is tlie Minister's reply given to-day to a question T>y Mr Taylor at Addington Work-shops:-—The case referred to is apparently that of a casual carpenter, sixty-one years of age, but who, nevertheless, is a first-class workman, capable of doing a good day's work, being ttrongly recommended. On that account his wages were increased from 9s 6d to 10s per day. Tlie practice of the Department is to pay all casual men what their services are reasonably worth, tho maximum wage being governed by the maxknums fixed in the CL-u-i-catkm Act. The regulations governing the promotion of the permanent staff have no hearing on the matter. The younger men to whom reference in made are, with one exception, permanent hands, and they are all getting as much a* they are worth at the present time. The same remark applies to the casual hands. Increases can only be paid, and promotionmade, in cases where the men dij—lay merit and ability to such an-extent as to warrant the responsible officers of die Department in making the necessary recommendation."