RAILWAY ROLLING STOCK

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3159, 10 August 1917, Page 7

RAILWAY ROLLING STOCK

A COMMISSION CRITICISED . MINISTER'S VIGOROUS REPLY. The report of the Railways Rollins? Stock Commission was presented by the Minister of Railways. ■ .■ ' Mr. T. M. WILFOED (Hutt) referred to the Rolline Stock Commission. He said that ia consequence of some remarks made by Mr. Veitch (Wansanui) and himself in the House, a group of well-paid commissioners had travelled from end to end lot Now Zealand askine; the officers in chaw of sections of line if their sections were well run, if they were run as well as they had been before Mr. Hiley camo to the Dominion, and if they could bo better run. The answers had never been in doubt. The officers had said what th.ey naturally would say in answer fo such questions. When the rolling stock question was raised in the House in August, tno Minister had said that he would consult Cabinet as to the -advisability of getting a report from an outside expert. That reply had been accepted in ?ood faith by members. But what the Minister and his officers really did was to set to . work, silently and secretly, to- improve matters. When tlie' cleaning-up processes had been, completed ;

six or seven months later, the Commission was set, up and sent touring through New Zealand to bring in the H'hite-washing verdict. The charge had been a year old when the inquiry was undertaken, and many thoufands of pounds had been spent in order to protect the dignity of high railway officials. He and Mr. Veitch had been asked to wander round New Zealand with the Commission after the cleaning-up process had been completed, in order to watch the belated and useless investigation bring out the expected evidence. Tho Commission had been a sheer pretence of a .very costly kind. Mr. W. A. VEITCH (Wanganui) said the whole purpose of the Commission had been to whitewash tho General Manager of Railways. He himself had been called before the Commission and subjected to hostile cross-examination; but he had not been given any chance to plnce before tho Commissioners actual facts regarding the railway sen-ice. A clever lawyer had represented the Railway. Department beforo the Commission, but the public had not been represented at all. Tho only witnesses called from the servico had been the men responsible for the condition of the rolling stock. Theso men had been asked if they were doing their work properly, and they had said "Yes" every time. No witnesses had been called from among tho guards, shunters, and engine-drivers', who had daily experience of tho rolling stock, and were not interested in concealing defects. He was • prepared to say that there had been an overcrowding of the workshops immediately after tho sittings of the Commission, owing to a realisation on the part of officers who had given evidence that tho rolling stock was not as sound as they had stated it to be. Mr. Veitch said that ■ many men were leaving tho railway service owing to the prevailing discontent with the conditions. . The 1 Government ought to look ■into this matter and ascertain why good men were resigning at ■ a time when the Department was short-handed and poorly run. While this was going on the General Manager was strutting about the camps in a military uniform.. He was not managing the Railways at all. If he was not required at tho head office, why not send him back to England, and give his salary to the man who was doing his work? ■ _ • Mr. Wilford: Tho subordinate officer does it better. Mr. Veitch: Then he should havo the salary. ' Mr. Wilford: I think he should.

Mr. Veitch added that the ventilation of the subject had done good by attracting attention to defects and inducing certain officers to attend more closely to their duties. Dr. ■H. T. .T. THACKER (ChristChurch East) said that the accommodation provided 011 the llnin Trunk trains was very poor indeed, and the people of New Zealand were far too .patient. They should protest against the way their railways were managed. Travellers had no comforts or conveniences, and every visitor to the Dominion went away with a thoroughly bad ■ impression of the railway system. The trouble arose from the fcict that the Minister was not capable of controlling the service, and with him officers who were not attending to their work. The only up-to-date railway carriages in use in New Zealand were those used by the Ministers. , Mr: L. M. ISITT (Christchurch North) said 'that while the Commission was sitting a railwayman had drawn his attention to tho fact that the only evidence called was that of men who were personally interested in concealing any defects. Othor railwaymen had confirmed that view. It seemed to him that whenever any charge was brought against n State Department, the whole weight of the Department was used to silence the critics, and not to disclose tho actual facts. Mr. G. W. FORBES (Hurumii) asked how much the Commission had cost. Tho Government ought to bo setting an example- 'of economy to tho public at the present time, and the Commission seemed to have been entirely unnecessary. Mr. A. H. HINDMARSH (Wellington South) suggested that the Minister of Railways had administered his Department with the object of showing that State undertakings ' were riot successful. A narty which disapproved of State action would not .be likely to protect the interests of enterprise that it would prefer to see abolished. The public had got no return at all for the expenditure of some thousands of pounds on thd Commission. MINISTER'S REPLY. WHO SHOULD BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY? The Hon. W. H. HERRIES (Minister of Railways) said:—"l should like to know what all this hullabaloo is about. Wo have been listening to the member for HVltt and tho member for AVanganui, who are the principal actors in this drama." Mr. Wilford: I should call it a farce. Mr. Herries: "I profer to call it a drama because it is a tragedy. If honourable members will read. tho evidence given before tho Commission by tho member for Hutt and the member for Wanganui they will agree with me that this drama is a tragedy—a trngedy for those two honourable gentlemen." These two honourable members, he continued, had,' as they thought, placed a bomb under the National Government, but tho bomb did not explode. (Laughter.) If the Commission had found that there was a. scintilla of evulenw that the rolling stock_ was n«J as it should be, these honourable gentlemen iwnld now have been saying it was tho finest Commis-

sion ever set up, and that the names of the commissioners would go down in golden letters in the annals of the Dominion! Their present attitude, was due only to spleen, because thev had found that what they alleged was taking nlace in the Railway Department did not'tako place, and that instead of woeful incompetence and neglect heing discovered, absolutely good work was being done. There was not tho slightest evidence of neglect. In the Beginning. Ha wished to say a word about the genesis of the Commission. It was quite true that complaints were made by the A.S.E.S. two years beforo the Commission was set up, but the honourable member knew nothing of this when he asked his question in the House. However, his information to this effect did not come as a siirprise packet to the Commission. In the House the matter was raised by a question addressed by the member for Hutt to him about the springs under carriages. Sir. Wilford: -And yon didn't reply. Mr. Herries: "The honourable member knows very well that I did reply to him. I promised him that I would get a report on the matter. I did get a report from the General Manager, .backed up by the heads of all the, workshops, and 1 laid that report on the table of tho House." But, Mr. Herries continued, the honourable member was not satisfied. Ho decleared that the reports were from a prejudiced source, and ho put on the Order Paper a notice of motion for a report on the rolling stock of the NewZealand Railways, of which the following was a part :—"That a Commission be sot tip to inquire into and report on the condition of the rolling stock .... and that tho Commissioner bo a railway expert." He (Mr. Herries) had followed, the honourable member's advice. Ho had set up a Commission, and now the' honourable momber expressed annoyance because it did not return the verdict he wished to have returned. The honourable member, having got the Royal Commission he asked for, was now complaining about tho expense of it. What was' to be thought of tho honourable gentlemen ? Their friends were saying now that tho Government ought not to have taken any notice of their charges—that after all the charges were made only by the member for Wanganui and the member for Hutt, and were not worth spending money about. This was what tho honorable igentlemen's friends said.

All Honpurable Men. Could anyone find fault with the personnel of the Commission? The honorable member for Hutt had himself suggested the name of ono of the members, Mr. Marchbanks. Mr. Wilford: liear, hear. A good man, too. Mr. Hcrries said he agreed that Mr. MaTchbanks, the nominee of the member for Hutt, was a good man. Then there was Professor Scott, of Canterbury College, who wa9 regarded as the greatest expert in engineering in the Dominion. The third member was Mr. Maxwell, a former manager of railways, and a good man. Better men could not have been found in the whole Dominion for sitting on such a commission. Mr. Wilford: After you had cleaned up. Mr. Herries: I deny that.' I go further, and say that this statement, which has been made outside the House—T am not referring now to the honourable member—is false. No attempt was made to clean up. ' Mr. Wilford: Now, there is a statement! How do.'.vun know that? Mr. Herries: The honourable member must take my word for it. . Mr. Wilford: I will accept that. A Case for Inquiry. Mr. Herries said that if there had been anything in the allegations of the honourable members there would have been ground for grave uneasiness on the part of the public. The honourable mem. ber for Hutt had spoken of broken springs under the carriages. The troublo was that ho did not know the difference between draw-bar springs and bearing springs. • Mr. Wilford: Neither did you. Mr. Herries: "Well, I must confess that I didn't know much about it at that time, but then I would not have been so stupid as to ask a question in the Houso about it. T would not have been so stupid ns to draw, the attention of the country to my ignorance." (Laughter.) Continuing, he said that if things were as the honourable member had represented, if there were broken springs under the carriages, there would have been cause for alarm, and somebody would have got the sack. Mr. Lee: Were porters and shunters called? Mr. Herries: There were shunters called. Mr. Veitch: The report says they wero not. Mr. Herries read the full text of tho report to tho House, and last of all came tlie findings. Mr. Wilford exclaimed: A good verdict on tho evidence! The Right of the Defendant. Mr. Herries argued that if Mr. Wilford and the other accusers neglected to present evidence thoy had no right to complain about the evidence ihat was given. It could not be suggested that these accusations against a big public Department and its officers, should pass unnoticed. They could not' be the butt of all these accusations without answering them. c » Mr. Wilford: keep beating the party drum. Mr. Herries: "1 know that the accusation was made in a party sense. The honourable member made his charges in order to blow up the National Government.*' He went on to insist upon the right of the Railway Department to defend itself by taking the proper steps— the steps asked for by the honourable member himself! An honourable member: What are you growling about? . Mr. Herries said he was "growling" because the honourable member for Hutt. had seemed to argue that the Railway Department had no right to defend itself, and because other members of the Houso backed- him up in it. Mr. Wilford: I thought you said my words did not count. Mr. Herries: That is what the honourable gentleman's friends said. Mr. Wilford: Scared you to death. Mr. Herries: "The honourable member knows that is not so, because we took sii months over setting up the Commission." "e returned to his protest against the Railway Department being made the sport of members of'the House. If it was unjustly attacked, was it not right for the Minister of Railways to see_ that its fair fame was vindicated? Ws£ it not right that he should appoint a Commission of Inquiry? Ho was glad, and ho'thought the House should be glad, that a Commission of the best men iu tho . Dominion should give this ample testimony as to the care taken for the safety of the public. Mr. Wilford: Just a mutual admiration society, that Commission! Mr. Herries: The honourable member is most unfair. . . .

The General Manager. "I think the General Manager has been most unjustly attacked," concluded Mr. Horries. "Mr. Hiley's reputation as a. railwayman will bo enhanced by his occupancy of tho position of General Manager of the New Zealand Hallways. Honourable, members are. simply venting their spleen against him when they refer to his being a colonel. 1 can say that the railway service has not suffered one atom from tho connection of Colonel Hiley with the Defence Department, whereas the Defence Department has gained great benefit from tho work <lone by Colonel Hiley. With every confidence I lay the report on the tablo of tho House, and, if honourable members will read it, they will see how baseless were the charges miulo against the Department." Mr. Wilford, in a "personal explanation," said that the Minister had wrongly accused him of opposing tho National Government. "I have stuck by the National Government," lie said. "I have seen it tottering and 1 have held it up." (Loud laughter.)