COMMENT FROM THE CAPITAL LIABILITY FOR FREIGHT— A CONTINUING PROMISE

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 32958, 3 July 1972, Page 12

COMMENT FROM THE CAPITAL LIABILITY FOR FREIGHT— A CONTINUING PROMISE

(By CEDRIC MENTIPLAY)

WELLINGTON. July 2.—lt seems unlikely that anything will be done this session of Parliament to increase the liability of New Zealand Railways to pay compensation for articles lost, damaged or destroyed while in Railways care.

Changes have been promised for years—but there was no reference to any such pending legislation in the Speech from the Throne delivered by the Governor-General (Sir Arthur Porritt) at the opening of Parliament. Departmental inquiries suggest that “something is moving”—but this has been the case for some two years now, without result.

The remarkable fact is that, in case of loss, theft or damage to a package consigned by Railways, the maximum liability of Railways is fixed at $4O a package. This' applies whether the “package” is a carton of towels or an umbrella—or a standard container packed with machinery.

This anomaly has been recognised for some time. In April 1968, the Contracts and Commercial Law Reform Committee of New Zealand presented a full report on the subject to the then Minister of justice (the late Mr J. R. Hanan). This report has been reprinted several times, but has not been recognised by legislation. The report comments: “We can see no reason why the Railways Department should enjoy special privileges in respect of terms and conditions of contracts of carriage, and several reasons why it should not . . . We believe that where the unit is of a lesser value than $lOOO it is reasonable for the consignor to look to the carrier for compensation not exceeding that sum.”

The curious fact is that the Railways Department is not permitted to fix its own liability. Some officers believe that as a trading organisation in competition with others it should be allowed to do so. But according to law this must be done by the slow, difficult method of legislation.

“Horse-and-buggy”

The liability of all carriers for goods lost, stolen or damaged is fixed in the Carriers’ Act. There are also various statutory provisions which go right back to the Government Railways Act 1926. (For convenience, the amounts mentioned in these acts have been converted from pounds to dollars, N.Z.). (1) Government Railways Act 1926. Maximum liability $2O for the contents of any parcel in which special goods are packed; $3O for any horse; $l6 for any one head of cattle; $4 for any dog; $1.50 for any one sheep, goat, pig or other quadruped not otherwise specified; 0.35 for any bird.

(2) Statutes Amendment Act 1944. Maximum liability $4O per package or unit; $3O for any horse; $l6 for any one head of cattle; $4 for any dog; $1.50 for any one sheep, goat, pig or other quadruped not otherwise specified; 0.35 for any bird. (3) Statutes Amendment Act 1948. The maximum package liability remained the same. The other rates were adjusted thus: $6O for any horse; $35 for any one head of cattle; $lO for any pig; $2O for any dog; $5 for any sheep, goat or other quadruped not otherwise specified, and $2 for any bird. (4) Government Railways Act 1949. This produced only minor changes. It may be noted that the 1944 act doubled the allowable figure on packages to what is still the recognised amount of Railways liability —s4o. The figures prescribed for animals and livestock have been adjusted, the package figure has not. “The amount payable as compensation for any package has therefore remained unchanged since 1944,” commented a legal authority to which these facts were shown. "It may be deduced that pressure in the meantime has been successfully applied by persons interested in the carriage of animals and livestock. The package liability would seem to be long overdue for increase.”

The phantom bill

After the initial presentation of the Contract and Commercial Law Reform Committee’s report, there were many high-level assur-

ances that action was being I taken. In many cases these. l (quietened complaints from! commercial organisations’ (concerning compensation for joss of or damage to expen-' sive consignments. Early in 1970, the then General Manager of Rail-j ways (Mr I. Thomas) replied; to a query about maximum | liability: “I understand that a bill will be introduced into the House during the coming. session. Presumably, when the bill is introduced inter-1 ested parties will have an opportunity to present evid-i ence before a Select Committee. If you wish to con-j firm this I would suggest' that you refer to the Justice Department, as the Minister of Justice will be introducing the legislation.” But a letter to the Minister of Justice produced no reply which would indicate immediate action. The Parliamentary year of 1970 produced no bill, nor has one eventuated since. Officials have been talking about the Contracts Committee’s report for the subsequent two years, to no apparent gain. Whole face changed In the meantime, the whole face of land and sea transport has changed. In the years before and during World War 11, railway cargoes generally consisted of livestock, bulk items (such as coal) and smaller packages sent by firms and by the ordinary citizen.

In the last 20 years the "packages” have grown in size. They include pre-cut timbe,, specially conditioned and packed for ease in handling—but still a "package” the loss or damage of which involves the Railways only to the extent of $4O. Of newer vintage still is the container-pack. A

(hundred sewing-machines, ’each in an individual carton. I represent a hundred separate packages and a Railways liability of $4OOO. The same machines packed in a (single container for ease tn 'transport become only one i package—and a Railways I liability of $4O. The whole problem of (carriers’ liability is admittedly a complicated one—but hardly complicated (enough to justify the wait lof four years since the Contracts Committee presented its report in April, 1968. ; Long before that date, (other items in the liability (schedule of Railways had I their amounts adjusted. It is reasonable to suppose that this was done simply because fanners’ groups were actively interested in seeing that their members, when sending livestock by tram, were adequately protected. A complete solution, having regard to problems of the “container age,” may take time, but a temporary adjustment would eliminate the ’continuing drain of losses to ■ small people and firms who I for various reasons do not I use pressure-group tactics.

'Brain drain'

New Zealand lost 155 Gov- ( emment scientists overseas I between 1964 and 1971, the j National Research Advisory ■ Council said in its annual re- | port to Parliament. In the same period it gained 219. ; The report said that in i 62 per cent of cases, experienced scientists had I been replaced by young graduates with little or no work experience In the majority ' of fields of qualification the gains from overseas exceeded the losses, but in mathematics there was a net outflow overseas of 15 scientists.—(P.A.).