PARLIAMENT

Manawatu Standard, Volume LI, Issue 117, 18 April 1931, Page 2

PARLIAMENT

RAILWAYS BILL AMENDED

DIRECTORATE TO BE INCREASED

Important amendments to tlie Railways Bill were announced by the Prime Minister yesterday in the House of Representatives, chief among- them being- one to increase the number of directors on the proposed board to five. The chairman is to receive £IOOO a year instead of £ISOO, and the other four are to receive £SOO each, which will mean that although there has been a readjustment, the total of salaries will remain at £3OOO.

A good deal of discussion took place on a motion to introduce the Auckland Harbour Bridge Empowering Bill—a private measure—the course eventually being agreed to.

Urgency has been granted the Railways Bill, but the House adjourned at an early hour this morning out of respect to Mr A. W. Hall, member for Hauraki, whose death has occurred.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. A BRIEF SITTING. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, April 17. The Legislative Council met at 2.30. Replying to Hon. G. J. Carrington, Sir Thomas Sidey said the Industries and Commerce Department had investigated the price of milk in the four centres and had found that reductions had taken *place on last year’s prices. The department would continue to watch the position. The Council rose at 2.35 until Wednesday.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. AUCKLAND HARBOUR BRIDGE. PRIVATE BILL INTRODUCED. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, April 17. The House of Representatives met at 2.30. Hon. A. J. Stallworthy moved for the suspension of the Standing Orders to allow of the introduction of the Auckland Harbour Bridge Empowering Bill. He said that it was the unanimous wish of all the interested Auckland local bodies that the measure be printed and circulated. Mr C. A. Wilkinson protested against the introduction of a private Bill during the emergency session. Mr H. T. Armstrong said that if this private Bill were allowed to be introduced the 6ame privilege should be accorded and private member’s Bill notice of which had been given as early as the first day of the session. The Prime Minister said that it had been represented that the interested local bodies and members of Parliament were very anxious that the measure should be considered. He pointed out that the promoter of a private Bill had to pay £25 for the introduction of any measure and had also to bear the cost of printing it. He had suggested that the Bill should stand over till next session, but the reply had been that if that was done the plant employed in the construction of the Sydney harbour bridge might not be available and the possibility of a substantial saving would be lost, Mr P. Fraser said that he would support the motion becauso the project was a great one and, further, because it would give employment to a large number of men. Mr E. J. Howard expressed opposition to granting powers to private companies without adequate consideration of all the aspects. Mr Stallworthy, replying, said that he was not at the moment asking for permission for the Bill to go beyond the first formal stages, though personally he would like such an urgent measure to be dealt with immediately. The House would still have an opportunity of deciding whether it should go further this session. On a division the motion was adopted by 62 votes to nine, and the Bill was then read a first time without a division. PUBLIC WORKS DISPUTE. Replying to the Leader of the Labour Party, Mr H. E. Holland, who asked for a detailed statement concerning the “lock-out of employees on various works,” Hon. W. B. Taverner said that it was erroneous to describe the situation as a lock-out. CONCESSIONS ON WAR DEBTS.

Mr W. E. Parry asked the Prime Minister if his attention had been drawn to the published account of a concession made by Britain to the Australian Government in the matter of payments in respect of war loans and whether the New Zealand Government proposed to make representations to Britain in respect of the Dominion’s obligations with the object of obtaining similar concessions. Mr Forbes replied that the concession applied only to the Sinking Fund. The latter portion of Mr Parry’s question would receive the 'earnest consideration of the Government. APPEAL FOR WORK.

Replying to Mr W. Nash, Hon. S. G. Smith said that he would make a further appeal to farmers to employ single men under the Unemployment Board’s 4n and 4b schemes.

URGENCY ON RAILWAYS BILL. PROPOSED DIRECTORATE OF FIVE. OTHER AMENDMENTS. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, April 17. Oji tlie motion of the Prime Minister urgency was accorded the passage of the Government Railways Amendment Bill. The debate on the second reading was continued and a division was taken on Mr Wilkinson’s amendment that the Bill he read six months hence, this being defeated by 49 votes to 22, the minority being composed of Labour members and Messrs Black, Hogan, Fletcher, Wilkinson and Lysnar. The Bill was then read a second time on a division.

Amendments to the Bill were introduced by Governor-General’s message. The Leader of the Opposition, Jit. Hon. J. G. Coates, asked if the Prime Minister would explain what they amounted to.

Mr D. G. Sullivan: Just what you asked for.

Mr Armstrong: They are your own amendments. Mr Forbes solid the main amendments dealt with alterations in the constitution of the board and would bring it more into the position of a directorate. There were a number of other amendments, but they were merely consequential. Mr Fraser said that the present was the time to explain the amendments. If the Prime Minister did not know enough about them to make an explanation perhaps the Leader of the Opposition would do it for him (Lab-

our laughter). The Bill was bail enough already, and he wanted to know if the amendments made it worse before he voted for it. When the House went into Committee on the Bill, Mr Forbes, explaining the amendments, said he thought they would make the Bill satisfactory. The Leader of the Labour Party: Will the Prime Minister tell the Committee who suggested the five members on the Board ?

Mr C. H. Clinkard: I suggested six Labour members. That accounts for it. Mr Forbes: The suggestions came from several quarters. Now that a sub-clause has been added to clause I making the Bill come into force on June 1, the Board has lieen altered to a directorate, all of whom will be part-time employees. Tlje object of that is to get the best men available and still leave them free to engage in their own business. The first two appointed other than the chairman will remain on the hoard for two years, 'the next two for three years, and all the subsequent appointments will be for two years. The chairman will be paid £IOOO a year and the members £SOO. The cost of the members’ salaries will still total £3OOO. It was originally proposed to have a chairman at £ISOO and two other members at £750 each.

Mr E. J. Howard said that he did not propose to do anything to delay the -passage of the Bill, because he regarded the division on the second reading as a fair indication of the feeing of the House. The second reading.had been carried by 49 votes to 22, and those 49 would have to bear the brunt of the responsibility for the consequences of the Bill. It seemed that outside interests had decided that the country must pass through a phase which he predicted would be a disastrous one as the result of tho adoption of such measures as that before tho House.

Mr Fraser said thnt the extraordinary feature was that the Bill had been advocated by nobody, ,Lt had been condemned by many members and had been apologised for and defended by the Government, but no one had come forward to advocate the Bill and demonstrate what benefits it might produce, Ho oritiolsed the proposal to place the eentrol in the hands of men who had not had experience in railway matters.

H.KSPONSIBiLITIES OF BOARD. Mr Coates said tliat tlio board of directors would bo responsible lor designing the business policy ot tlio railways and seeing that the management carried out the policy. A majority in the House wore ot tlio opinion that New Zealand should endeavour to follow the principle that had been adopted succossluiiy in other countries by allowing our railways to bo controlled by a board. That board, Mr Coutos asserted, should as nearly as possible conform with the principles of n board of directors of an ordinary company. The next question whs just how the House was going to sot up the directorate, There had been complaints that pressure brought to boar from electorates and other quarters had prevented the railways from being run on business lines. The intention ot the Bill now before the House was to eliminate political control.

Labour members : Does it do that ? Mr Coates said that the Bill eliminated political control except in one particular, namely, in that the Trea sury was virtually in the position of a receiver. It was hopeless to put tlio system on trial on the understanding that thero should be a year to year budget. The Treasury at some point must come into the situation, but under the Bill the Treasury was in the position of a receivership. That difficulty, however, might be overcome if a strong board were appointed. It would be possible for a strong board to give a lead to the Treasury in regard to the system of accounting it desired to be followed.

Mr Coates said the board must ascertain from the management the position of the railways. Up to that point it must depend on the management, but from the information that was placed at the disposal of the directorate it would undoubtedly mould its policy. Up to the present wo had had changes of Government, with consequent changes of policy. Under a board, continuity of policy would be possible. Reports should be presented to Parliament annually on the same lines as the report previously supplied by the Minister. Mr Coates said that he wanted to ask the Prime Minister how he proposed to treat the present concessions that were given to school children and granted in connection with freights on fertilisers and so forth. Were the present concessions to continue? Mr Wilkinson: The board will determine those points. Mr Coates: Oh, no. It will he a matter for the Government to decide whether it will make up for the losses consequent upon continuing these services. I want an assurance that under this Bill these concessions will not be terminated without reference to Parliament. FUTURE OF CONCESSIONS.

Mr Forbes said that in his opinion the Bill would vastly improve the railways. He considered that the report, of the recent commission, which had been composed of business men, had been the most valuable report made in connection with the New Zealand railways, and he was so pleased with it that he was convinced that control should be handed over to business men with a view to their determining the commercial policy. IReplying to Mr Coates’s reference to existing railway concessions, Mr Forbes said that those concessions would bo a matter for adjustment between the Government and the directors. Tho first thing the directors would do would be to submit to the Government that the railways were carrying out the Government’s l>olicy and that they would expect the Government to make up for the loss involved in carrying out . a Government policy that was not at the same time a railway policy. That was the

attitude that could bo expected from any body of business men. Continuing Mr Forbes said that he felt the Bill would be looked upon as a most valuable contribution to successful railway management in this country. There would be a substantial benefit as a result of ,the association of business men with railway minds in controlling the railways, lhe Bill would make the railways as independent as possible from political interference. LABOUR CRITICISM. The Leader of the Labour Party said that the further the debate went the more delightful the comedy became. It the Prime Minister took up the attitude that the railways had been dissociated from political interference why did he not bring down a Bill to abolish political control. The present Bill did not achieve that result. Mr I orbes had expressed himself warmly in favour of control by businessmen, but if his belief in that principle were genuine why hnd lie on assuming office as Prime Minister taken the portfolio of railways from a businessman who at that time was Minister and handed it over to a railwayman. Where was his consistency? Then the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister went on to stato that the Board would control the policy and the next moment both declared the Government was to make the policy for the Board. Mr Holland added that he could not believe the Government was as innocent as it made out in stating it did not know who was going to be appointed to the board. In order to achieve this comedy of management the Government was going to put an extra £3OOO a year on to the cost of railway control in New Zealand. There was one assurance lie wanted from the Minister of Railways; lie would like an assurance that the position would not arise that as soon as control was handed over to the board men would again be dismissed and when the Government was approached on the matter it would simply reply. “We cannot interfere politically with the board.’’ It had to be remembered that a large number of these men had long service in the department despite the fact that thev were classed as casuals. Hon. W. A. Veitcli, Minister of Railways, said lie had been asked by the Leader of the Labour party if the positions of men in the Railway Department would be assured under the Board. All he could say was that the work of the Department would be carried on by the men necessary to do it and that the poliev would be maintained as Jong as he was in charge of the Department. The policy of paying the directors a much smaller salary than the general manager was cpiite in keeping with other business concerns. The directors of the Bank of New Zealand were not paid as much as the general manager. It had been said it was not possible to find five men capable of taking charge of the railways. This was ridiculous. There were hundreds of capable business men in the country. A division on the short title was taken at' midnight, the clause being passed by 33 to 14. Replying to Mr K. S. Williams, who urged an investigation into the South Island Mnin Trunk railway, Mr Forbes said ho had no objection to the board reviewing lines under construction as well as suspended work. A division was taken on an amendment moved by Mr G. C. Black to provido that the board’s construction proposal should bo subject to the approval of the .House of Representatives only instead of both Houses. Mr Blnclc contondod that the control of the publio jnirse should be limited to the House of Representatives in accordance with the usual prnctice. The amendment was defeated by 32 to 13. It was later announced that Mr A. W, Hall, member for Hauraki, had ded and after expressions of sympathy with the relatives the House adjourned at 1.40 a.m,