RAILWAYS BILL.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 16985, 6 November 1920, Page 4

RAILWAYS BILL.

* —i — DEBATE IN HOUSE. (abridged press association report.) "WELLINGTON, November 5. In the House of Representatives this afternoon the Prime Minister moved the'committal of tlie Government Rail- j .ways Act Amendment Bill. Mr "VVilford said that the schedule, J which was compiled in April, made no j provision for the increase in the cost of living which had taken place sinco| then. He congratulated the Government on the bid it was making to secure the services of apprentices by improving the rate of remuneration. There was a dearth of apprentices as the result of inducements given in other | businesses. Only the fitting car- i penterino- Department of the railway | workshops had any apprentices 'Work | which should bo the work of the rail-j wav workshops was beino; done by; Price Bros., owing to the fact that the j Government could not get labour. This was to be attributed to the lowness of the State pay. Mr Luke commented on the slight, difference in the rates -of pay between skilled and unskilled labour in the railwav service, which ho thought was not "calculated to encourage skilled men. He also thought that the schedule of pay should be more flexible, and that the Minister should have power to increase pay as the cost ot living toss. , . Mr McCombs declared that whereas the railway men were receiving 62 per cent, increase for the cost of livingi they should be getting 73 per cent., increase. Mr Mitchell said the increase in wages wlxs everlastingly chasing the increase in the cost of living. He believed that it would be better to have kept down the cost of living than to have increased wages. He asked Mr Massdv to give the House'an assurance that the railwaymen's superannuation would not be broken on account of the recent unfortunate strike. Air Holland contended that railwaymen and other civil servants should be given full citizen rights, and permitted to stand for Parliament without the necessity of resigning their positions. He also urged the abrogation of the Minister's right of veto over decisions of the Railway Appeal Board. Mr Veitch said the Bill embodied improvements agreed upon by a conference of the persons concerned. . He pointed- out, however, that the provi-' sion to meet the cost of living was based on figures prepared some time a "0, and the cost had sincfe further increased. Unless there was a fall m the cost of living, fresh applications for additions to pay were inevitable. The Prime Minister, in replying, said the statement that apprentices m the railway service were not attracted e\en l>v increased pay, was not correct. The Department had more applicants than it could place. Everything possible was being done to put all the available rolling stock m order>r the busy season. The Superannuation Fund was to be strengthened, and lie hoped that at an early date full housing provision would be inade-a start had already been made—and tliat the rent in no case would exceed one day s pay. Regarding overtime, Mr Massey said in most cases overtime_ was _ paid ror. \ s far as civil and political rights were concerned, he thought the men had pretty well full civil rights already. The question of political rights was a • more difficult one, but he proposed to move in Committee that provision be made to enable a railwayman to obtain leave of absence to ..stand for Parliament, but if he was e ected he would automatically cease to be amembcr oi: the service. Replying to Mr Mitchell, Mr Massev said the men s position in regard to superannuation would not be affected by the recent strike. The motion to go into Committee was on the Bill, the Prime Minister moved to include a clause regarding the granting of leave to enable railwaymen to contest Parliamentary elections, but the chairman ruled that it was inadmissible, as »t should bo included in the Legislature Act. _ Mr Holland moved a new clause to abolish the Minister's right of veto over decisions of the Board of Appeal. Sir William'Herries, late Minister of Railways, said he had .no objection to this abolition of the right of veto if the Department was represented on the Board, but so long as it was not so represented the Minister should the right of veto. ■ Mr Massey said he concurred in this view and attitude. . . Mr Veitch said' it was straining the position to say that the Department had no representation on the Board, but he suggested a way out would be for the Minister to'agree not to use his power of veto where the Board s decision was unanimous. This would not" endanger the Minister s authority ( over the railway employees. _ The pvoposed new clause was rejected bv 33 votes to 26, and the Bill was reported without amendment, read a third time, and passed.