LONG DEBATE

Evening Post, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 74, 28 March 1944, Page 7

LONG DEBATE

RAILWAYS BILL

TRIBUNAL'S FUNCTIONS

Contrary to general expectations, the second reading debate on the government Railways Amendment BUI occupied practically the whole of yesterday afternoon and .the .greater part of the evening sitting in the House of Representatives yesterday. The mam Opposition criticism was directed to the position that woulfl arise if the chairman of the tribunal to be set up under the Bill was not in agreement with one or other of the two assessors to be appointed and to the effect of the Stabilisation Regulations. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Semple), while stating 'that there were no records of such "a situation having ;ar>iscn an connection with the Arbitration Court, agreed to give the matter further consideration with a ciriew, if possible, to making the clause clearer and more water-tight. After same further discussion in Committee, the Bill was read a third time and passed.

The Minister of Railways (Mr. Semple) said that the Bill was nothing new, as organisations similar to the tribunal had been appointed by past Governments. The fundamental difference was that previous organisations were appointed in an advisory capacity, whereas the proposed tribunal would be a mandatory court and carry the responsibility associated with its findings. The railway service was giving wonderful service, but there were some anomalies which it was desirable to straighten out. Referring to the clause in the Bill stipulating that the decision of the majority of members should be the decision of the tribunal, the Minister said that the constitution of the tribunal would be similar to that of the Arbitration Court, and never in the history of the Court had the two assessors outvoted the Judge. Mr. Semple mentioned the name of Sir Francis Frazer as possible chairman of the tribunal, stating that the representatives of the men had suggested Sir Francis for the position. He was satisfied that the tribunal, which was desired by all four railway workers' organisations, would function admirably. The men preferred the tribunal to the Court on the grounds that on the tribunal would be men who knew the service.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Holland) said the Bill was a very desirable measure, although there were one or two points on which constructive criticism might be offered. He thought the MinuVer was astray in referring to the Arbitration Court as unsuitable.

I Mr. Semple: I told, the men that the Court would suit me, but they gave their reasons for preferring the tribunal. The Prime Minister: The Arbitration Court would be. quite acceptable to the Government. DECISIONS OF TRIBUNAL Mr. Holland said he was prepared to support the tribunal proposal, but argued the wisdom of allowing a majority decision and thought that clause should be altered. The Minister had said that on the Arbitration Court the assessors had never outvoted the Judge. The answer was that they did not have a vote.

Mr. Semple: They put in a minority report.

Mr. Holland: Every decision of the Court must have the approval of the Judge, and that is quite proper. Mr. Holland recalled that the Land Sales Bill had been amended to ensure that no decision of the Land Sales Court was valid unless it was supported by the Judge. The same principle should apply on the tribunal proposed in the Railways Amendment Bill.. Unless the clause was altered the tribunal chairman would find himself in an impossible position. The Prime Minister assured the House that serious consideration had been given to the point of what would happen if there could be no majority decision. The Bill provided that if the assessors were divided in opinion the decision of the Judge would be the decision of the tribunal.

Mr. Holland: What would happen if the two assessors made a decision against the Judge? The Prime Minister: It has never happened, but if it occurred there would be no order, because the Judge would not sign it. Mr. Fraser added that the railwaymen's organisations made it very clear that they wanted a tribunal separate from the Arbitration Court. Where a tribunal had the final responsibility it would take it more seriously than if it had only to send a recommendation forward to the Minister. The Government as an employer should not be in any different position from the private employer. who had to carry out the directions of the Arbitration Court. The measure would not interfere with the administration pf the railways by the Department and the Minister, nor would it close the door to access to the General Manager or the Minister. He would be sorry to see the men deprived of that privilege, because many things could be speedily adjusted at such interviews. STABILISATION ASPECT. Mr. Holland expressed satisfaction that railwaymen were riot going to be the football of politics any longer, but it should not be allowed to go out that because the Bill was passed they were necessarily going to get higher wages. Mr. Semple: That is safeguarded because recommendations are subject to the Stabilisation Committee. Mr. Holland: There is such a thing as stabilisation though it has been whittled down. This tribunal may not grant the increases in wages that the men are, hoping to get. THE RAILWAYS BOARD. Mr. G. H. Mackley (National, Masterton), a former General Manager of Railways, said the 1936 amendment gave the Government all the power it needed to do anything it desired for the railway servants—the only thing lacking was the desire to do it. If the Bill was put into effect with good will it would not be so bad, but to judge by the past railwaymen could hope for no more in the future than had transpired in the past. When the Railways Board went out, the ex-Minis-ter of Railways said that control went back to the Minister, who would be responsible to Parliament and to the people. In the proposed amendment the Government was divorcing itself from that responsibility. The trouble v/as that the Government had changed its policy and its doctrines from time to time, but it was not coming out into the open and saying publicly that it had changed them. Previously the Government had said that control of Government services should not be handed over to nonrepresentative bodies. That was why he was charging the Government with inconsistency.

The Prime Minister: Is the honourable gentleman opposing the Bill? Mr. Mackley: No, I'm not opposing the Bill. I'm interested in many points which cause me to have some lack of faith in what is proposed in the Bill, and when I say lack of faith I hope I will not be misunderstood.

When draft copies of the amendment were presented to certain of the organisations concerned, the clauses relating to stabilisation were not in it, and he was able to say that many of the members of those organisations viewed the implications of the Bill with very grave doubts, because if there was any real intention to give the railwaymen what they-were justly entitled to the Bill should have been brought down long ago if the provisions of the 1936 Act were not sufficient.

To taring the Bill down at this particular time was tantamount to offering the men a valueless coin, because no matter what the tribunal might do or think it was helpless in face of the provisions of the Stabilisation Regulations. If the Government was serious in its desire to do what he would call a fair and proper thing by the Public Service of New Zealand it would have done it long ago. "THAT'S NOT RIGHT." The Minister of Supply (Mr. Sullivan) charged Mr. Mackley with being illogical and inconsistent. Mr. Mackley had approved the proposals for the termination of the activities of the Railways Board, and he (Mr. Sullivan) could not go as far as Mr. Mackley wanted him to go at that time in at-

tacks on the board and the previous General Manager. Mr. Mackley: That's not right. Be fair. •

If the Government was inconsistent because it dispensed with the Railways Board and in bringing in the amendment, continued Mr. Sullivan, then Mr. Mackley must obviously also be inconsistent in indicating his approval of the Bill. Mr. Mackley, said his approval was given because the raiLwaymen wanted the measure.

Mr. Sullivan said that the management of the railways would remain under the Minister and General Manager of Railways. The only change was in respect to wages and conditions, and experience had shown that it was desirable to make that alteration. Stabilisation must be a factor guiding the Government, the Arbitration Court, and tribunals of every kind, otherwise the country would be threatened with the worst possible disaster short of invasion.

Rising to a point of order, Mr. Mackley said that Mr. Sullivan had accused him of introducing personalities into his report. He wished to refute the allegation.

Mr. Sullivan replied that he had not said that Mr. Mackley had included personalities in his report. What he had said was that it was impossible for him to say to the House the things that Mr. Mackley had desired him to say. about the Railways Board and a previous General Manager.

The railwaymen through their organisation had been pressing for justice, and the Government in introducing the present measure admitted that it was not capable of giving them that justice, said Mr. W. A. Bodkin (National, Otago Central). The railwaymen had a right to say that the Government had no right to hold up stabilisation against them, because the rise in the cost of goods was the result of the Government's policy. He would support the Bill because it was the only way to get the Government to make a decision in favour of the railwaymen, many of whom received disgracefully low wages. MINISTER IN REPLY. The Minister of Railways, speaking in reply, said it had been suggested that the Bill was a political somersault on his part, but he had never been opposed to conciliation councils or tribunals of that nature to discuss wages and conditions. He would always prefer the settling of disputes by that method rather than by the strike method. Although he had been accused of being a promoter of strikes he had favoured a strike only once, and that was for the protection of life and limb. The right methods were conciliation first and then arbitration. Asked by Mr. K. J. Holyoake (National, Pahiatua) what the relationship would be between the Minister and the tribunal, Mr. Semple said the Minister would have no more to do with the tribunal than the man in the street. If he were allowed to interfere it would not be fair. Anyone who interfered with the board was isubject to a fine of £50, and that applied equally to the Minister. On the other hand, in a huge concern like the railways, there were hundreds of other matters that could be discussed with the Manager of Railways, the union's representative, or the Minister. He thought the time had come in all industries where more notice should be taken of the men who worked in the industries. In fact, the general trend in the world today was that the working men should be given a share in the management. The old stereotyped wage system was worn out, and there should be some measure of general control between the men who did the work and the directors.

When the Labour Government took over the average wage of a railwayman was £227 a year and now it was £347 a year, which was nearly double in some cases; and since the Government had been in office the men had received a total of £11,500,000 they would not otherwise have received.

In the Committee stage Mr. Holland asked Mr. Semple if he had investigated the question whether decisions of the tribunal must be subscribed to and signed by the chairman. Would it be practicable for the chairman to say that he did not agree with the decision and therefore refuse to sign it? While it was not impossible for the chairman to-be in disagreement with the two assessors, said the Minister, he was advised that the constitution of the tribunal was the same as for the Arbitration Court and that there were no records of, the situation raised by the Leader of the Opposition having arisen. If the impossible should happen he admitted that it would lead to confusion. He would have another look at the matter in the morning, and if it was possible to make the clause clearer and more watertight so that there would be no confusion he would try to do it.

The Bill was put through the remaining stages and passed.