PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 9307, 16 September 1893, Page 5

PARLIAMENT.

[BY TELEGRAPH.—PRESS ASSOCIATION.] t ■ I LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. " Friday. 8 The Council met at 2.30 p.m. J OFFICERS OF THE COUNCIL. * Dr. Pollen moved thab in the' opinion of fc the Council the control of officers of the 1 Legislative Council constitutionally is and 1 should remain with the Speaker. He said * the independence of the Council was the I very essence of its existence, and its officers »- ought nob to be exposed to any interference t for party purposes by any outside I authority. . * The debate was adjourned till Monday in J order to allow Sir P. Buckley to make him- ] self acquainted with the subject matter, J and also to obtain an expression of opinion i from the Speaker. J THE LIQUOR BILL. * The Alcoholic Liquor Bill was reported I from committee with amendments, the third leading being made an order of the i day for Monday. ' PUBLIC REVENUES BtLL. " ' The Public Revenues Bill was read a 1 second time. ' LAND AND INCOME TAX. ' Sir P. Buckley moved the second read- 1 ing of tho Land and Income Assessment 1 Acb Amendment Bill. ] Mr. Stevens said he would give the < Colonial Secretary every assistance to make I the Bill a workable measure. ! The debate was adjourned till Monday. ' BILLS PASSED. I The Palmerston North Hospital and ' Charitable Aid Empowering Bill, and the | Wanganui Harbour Board Bill were pub ' through their final stages. ' The Council rose at 4.30 p.m. < HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES. i Friday. 1 The House met at 2.30. ! THE LATE MB. LEVIN. I The House, on the motion of tho Premier, : adjourned at ten minutes to three until I evening, as a mark of respect to the memory < of the late Mr. Levin, a former member of < the House, who died somewhat unexpectedly to-day. The remarks made by the i Premier and others on the occasion will be found reported in another column. Tho House resumed at 7.30. THE ELECTORAL BILL. Mr. Seddon said he desired to make a ; statement with respecb to a Bill that was creating considerable anxiety at the present time, he referred to tho Electoral Bill. He explained tho passing of the Electoral Bill with the word "leaseholders," but said this was merely surplusage, and immaterial. There was, however, one material error, and that was they had not provided that certain questions could be pub to a Maori as to his having voted before, though this could be done to half-castes and Europeans. Id was proposed to amend this error, which had been discovered by tho Clerk of Parliaments. Ho intended to bring down this amendment by message from Governor, but he feared that serious difficulty mighb arise if they sent the Bill back to the Legislative Council, and this course, it was intended, to avert by bringing in a separate Bill. This course, ho hoped, would dispel any doubts which had been or might be hold as to the sincerity of the Government on tho subject. In reply to Sir J. Hall, Mr. Seddon said he had acquainted the Governor with the course the Government intended to adopt, and was about to sign a letter to him asking him to withdraw the message he had sent down, and give his assent to the Bill. THE RAILWAY BILL. Mr. Seddon moved the second reading of the Government Railways Act Amend ment Bill. In doing so he said ho was now asking the House to deal with a most important subject, and one that would greatly affect the welfare of the colony. The question was whether tho railways should continue to be in the hands of three irre sponsible persons, or that the Government should have some control over them. They might be told the railways were managed in this way in other colonies, but ho held that this colony had no reason to be proud of the present railway management. He said thab all he now wanted was to ensure that what was taken from the people in lbS7 should bo restored to thtm. Tho change then made was done with the I sanction of the people of the colony, and it was only reasonable that the people should demand the restoration of their rights in this respecb. He did nob wish to say a single word against the Railway Commissioners. Mr. McKerrow in his former capacity had given general satisfaction, but ; he was forced to take his present position. (Mr. Fergus: That is nob a fact). He should bo sorry to do Mr. McKerrow an injustice, but he was told thab when asked to take his presenb position, he pleaded inexperience. He hoped no feeling would be shown in this matter, and thab they would approach the question calmly and in a fair spirit. The reason why the Bill was nob introduced earlier in the session was, because the Government considered the country should bo fully acquainted with its provisions. The Bill was considerably modifiod from what it was last session. He pointed out thab of 38 who voted for tho Railway Bill of 1887, only 19 were now in the House, and oub of 14 who voted against it, 11 now had seats in the present House. Ho wont on to state thab had ib been known thab tho present Commissioners would have taken office the Railway Bill would never have become law in 1887. They were told there muse bo no politics in connection with tho railways, He maintained that there was at the present time politics, and a policy in connection with the railways. Highly-paid officers would, no doubt, oppose tho change sought to be made in this Bill, bub the working men on tho railways would, ho believed, welcome tho change. The Railway Commissioners did nob deserve credit for saving the colony during the labour struggle in this colony. The action of the Commissioners, on tho contrary, tended to promote disorder. The railway insurance scheme proposed by tho Cominismissioners was allied to the scheme drafted by some public company, and which had had the effect of interfering with the liberties of the workers. He went on to quote figures to show thab the departmental expenditure of the railways had increased during the year. Ho asked whether it was right that irresponsible persons should have the right to a large amount of unauthorised expenditure in the same way as Ministers of the Crown, who were directly responsible to the people. The Government had no power bo alter the railway rates. If tho Railway Commissioners choose to reduce the rates, the finance of bhe Governmenb mighb be ruined, and if bhey raised them they might cause great trouble and inconvenience. The Commismissioners had ib in their power to cause prosperity or adversity bo the colony, and if improved communication meant increased prosperity, the Commissioners had power to cause Greymouth and Wesbporb Harbour Boards to make default without the Governmenb being able to do anything to prevent it, and three irresponsible men had no right to have that power. He referred at great length to the management of the various lines by bhe Commissioners, and contended that they should nob look altogether bo making railways pay so much per cent., bub they should study the convenience of the public. He showed thab the increased expenditure this year over - last year was £15,000, whilst the increased revenue was only £5000. Taking the service right through, there had been an increase in salaries of highly paid officers, whilst Parliamenthad declared thereshouldbenoincrease. He assorted there was general discontent amongst tho railway employees from one end of the colony to the other, and there had been very unfair promotions in tho service. Referring to the Bill now before the House he said that although it was proi posed that a Minister should be appointed i one of the Commissioners he would himself ; like to be relieved from that duty. It had been said that personal considerations had induced him to bring in the Bill. There was nothing of tho kind. An Act remained for all time, and if ib was right thab Ministers should be members of Boards controlling ! other departments such a rule should be a good one when applied to the railways. At ' presenb the chairman of the Commissioners ' had the power of veto, and consequently nothing unusual would have been proposed if the Minister had asked for such a power. I He explained other provisions of the Bill in J detail, and said he submitted ib to the J House in the full confidence that the Governmenb were doing th«r best for the good of the colony, by asking the House to ! take the railway management from, the hands of tho Commissioners. '

Mr. Rolleston said the speech they had just listened to was largely an electioneering speech, a regular stump oration, one that was nob altogether manly, inasmuch as it resolved itself into an attack on absent men. The Premier had said the people should rejoice that the control of the railways was about to be restored to them, but he would show that control had nob been* taken from the people by the Act of 1887...;',.. Mr. Seddon's speech consisted largely of statements and mis-statements which he had reiterated all over the country previously. Ho declined bo admit that Mr. Seddon spoke the voice of Parliament and the country since he had been in office. Parliament had expressed its voice by enactment and not by the voice of the Premier. He held thab if they legislated properly they would bring the Railway Department more in accordance with the will of the people than it was at present. It was apparent from Mr. Seddon's attack on the Commissioners that there was a strong personal bias in his mind all through. When the Railway Bill was brought down in 1887 the country rang from one end to the other in consequence of the political management of the railways. He (Mr. Rolleston) held that thecommercial intelligence and thinking portion of the country were against the proposals submitted in the present Bill, tie asserted that so far as he had seen and read thera was nothing to regreb in the appointment of the present Commissioners. The Ministry of the day bad done their best to find an experb, bub if they had found an experb he did nob think they would be better off t"han ab present Mr. Seddon had, throughout, been a strong opponenb of the Commissioners, and had indulged in the grossest inaccuracy of statements, but he had utterly failed to render the Act inoperative, or to discredit the Commissioners themselves. They had 'been told there were large increases in the salaries of highly paid officers, and as far as he could make out from the returns, there had been no reduction in the general wages of the different classes of men. They had been classified according to merit, but ho injustice was done to the men ? If there had been any reduction in the wages of the working men the Premier himself was responsible. He was always appealing to the working men ; but what right had he to bring down Estimates which he thought reduced the wages of the working men. lb was, in fact, an idle claptrap appeal on the eve of the elections, and the working men of the colony would find that out. If the working people studied their true interest they should seek to continue the present management instead of that ot the Premier with a majority at his back. The Premier had stated the Railway Commissioners wero responsible for the strike, but he hold that the Commissioners had in reality averted a great national disaster, and had saved the colony from those blind leaders of the blind during the late strike. Men like the Minister for Education, who accused the Commissioners of provoking the strike, were guilty of a wicked thing, which would recoil on themselves. He was strongly of opinion that a speech of the kind just made by the Premier entirely unsupported by departmental evidence of any kind, was utterly unworthy of acceptance, for the proper course would have been to adjourn the debate in order to have the Premier's speech reported in full, and to give those persons who were attacked on opportunity of replying. The House also had no opportunity whatever of knowing whether the Premier's statements as to the condition of the rolling stock, etc., were correct or not. The Premier had repeatedly told them ho could obtain no information from the Commissioners ; how, therefore, could he make so many statements to the House as ho had made, unless he obtained information from some of the officers of the Railway Department in some underhand way ? Ho asserted, notwithstanding the Premier's statement, that he could not get any information, that there was no department that so fully reported details as the Railway Department. The Premier had asserted that general discontent prevailed amongst the railway employees. He (Mr. Rolleston) was nob awaro of it, bub if there was any discontenb it had been encouraged by Mr. Seddon himself. He deprecated the attack made upontheCommissioners and their officers, and said it was time that either the Promier or the Commissioners gave way. The Premier had quoted the case of Victoria as an argument against the Railway Commissioners, but he would ask whether the hon. gentleman would like die House to follow the example of Victoria in the matter of finance? Even taking the case of Victoria the charges made against the Commissioners in thab colony had quite broken down, and the same thing occurred in the case of Sydney. He quoted from statistics to prove that there was a continual advance in revenue from the railway since the Commissioners had charge of them, and there was no cause for complaint on the part of the public on the financial score. He also referred to the absence of accidents on the railways since handing them over to the Commissioners, which he considered was perfectly unprecedented. The Commissioners had also acted with great impartiality to all classes of the community. As to the Bill before the House, it was not an amending Bill, but a repeal of a moat secret and surreptitious character. Clause 4 revealed the autocratic character of the Premier, as by thab clause the Minister was to have a deliberative and casting vote. If the Minister had one of his creatures on the Board (and he could do that in three months), he would be absolute master of the Board, which would entirely lose its independence, and the spirit of tho Act of 1887 would bo completely violated. If they were to alter the law at all, he thought it would be far better to go back to individual Ministerial responsibility, as was the case before 4he Commissioners wero appointed. The Minister for Public Works had no right to asperse tho Commissioners in the manner he had done, when lie had tho power to suspend them or callfor an inquiry, but thofact washedarenob do it. After referring to the various clauses of tho Bill, he said he hoped the House would show its sense ot the measure by giving ib a short shrift. He concluded by moving the following amendment, "That in the opinion of the House ib is undesirable on the eve of the general election, and until the electors of tho colony have had an opportunity of expressing their opinions on the subject to make any radical alterations in the management of the Government Railways, as proposed in this Bill, or in the personnel of the Railway Commissioners." Sir KoBEBT Stodt thought in discussing this Bill they should not allow the personal question to come into it at all. When the Commissioners were first appointed ho expressed the opinion thab Mr. Maxwell was an excellent officer, though nob perhaps able to get on with people so well as other officers. Mr. McKerrow and Mr. Hannay were also very capable officers. He considered thab if a change were effected in railway management it would mean a change in other directions, and it meant in fact a change in our system of government. The debate that night was to his mind the strongest argument against Boards, and it meant that the administration of the Commissioners could not be criticised unless the Commissioners were present to reply to the charges made against them. The system of Boards without Ministerial control had been tried in England, and had proved a failure. The Railway Commissioners had no one in Parliament to represent them, and thab in itself condemned the system. If they were to have the present system continue, they must have a Minister on the Board responsible to the House, and he would have direct control over the railways. The original Acb gave enormous power to the Commissioners, greater powers than the owners of railways had in America. Ib gave them power to make differential rates in case of large quantities of goods. That could nob be defended on the principle of responsible government, It showed that the Government of the people in this colony had failed, and entirely destroyed the principles of democracy. The Bill ot 1887 left everything to the discretion of the Commissioners, and there was no power to alter it, except by refusing to pass the Estimates. (Mr. Rolleston: You can remove them.) You cannot remove them, unless by a special thing. (Mr. Rolleston : You can pass an Act.) Yes, but if you do, an amendment might be mo such as thab now before the House. The fact was the Commissioners could not be removed, unless for some misbehaviour. He (Sir R. Stout) asserted that there were many charges ot mismanagement against the Commissioners. When the railways were under Ministerial control, and there were charges, Ministers soon heard of them. The question, therefore, was whether the State should carry goods ! by the railway, or hand the railways over to ' private people. Th© very existence of this

system was the evidence that the Government of the people had failed and should be altered. He always had been opposed to taking any railways from Parliamentary control. He asked the House therefore to look at the question from a broad standpoint, and to say whether the Government were fit to manage its own concerns or to leave them in the hands of irresponsible men. He did' nob ' think the Bill went far enough. If he had his way he would repeal the Act altogether, but they must be content to take what they could get in this direction. Mr. RotLKSTON at 12.50 hoped that the Premier would consent to an adjournment of the debate, as it was a very important question. Mr. Seddon refused to adjourn. Mr. Lakh then moved the adjournment of the debate, which was lost by 30 to 17. Mr. Richardson said that the Premier had not neglected to occupy plenty of time when moving; the second reading of the , Bill, and he thought it rather unfair to rush the Bill through the House at such a late hour of the night. It was most unreasonable after the work that they had done that week to force on such an important Bill as thab now before them. He read reports of several interviews between the Premier and the railway servants, and stated thab the Premier's action with respect to those interviews was planned to fan discontent between the Commissioners and railway employes. He held it would be much better to come back to the old state of affairs, when the Minister of the dr.j was responsible to Parliament, than to have this half-and-half affair. The present Government would nob always be on those benches, and the next election might result in such a turn over as would send Ministers over to the Opposition benches. He held it was a most improper thing that a Minister should have the powor of veto in a matter of this kind. If the present Government remained in power who would be Minister on the Board ? Why the present Premier, who by his speech that night appeared to be ready to undertake the duties of Colonial Treasurer as well as all his other duties. He referred to several statements made by the Premier, and said thab his principal reason for rising to speak was to express his disapproval of the Bill, and to bring into prominence the different attitudes assumed by the Premier to separate the railway conferences in Wellington. Mr. Sandford moved the adjournment of the debate until Monday at half-past two p.m., which was agreed to. The House rose at 1.25 a.m.