RAILWAY MANAGEMENT.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 10526, 6 August 1910, Page 6

RAILWAY MANAGEMENT.

NEW ZEALAND LEADS AUSTRALIA. By Telegraph. ■ (From Our Own Correspondent.) Wellington,' August 5. The Minister .of Railways (the-Hon. •3. A. Millar) muck- a statement in the House of Representatives on the result of his recent visit to Australia, during which he collected a quantity of valuable information concerning .the working of railways, and presented it in comparison with the working of the New Zealand railways. Mr Millar said he might have expected, in view of the fact that "the Civil Service Board was strongly advocated by the Opposition, that a better state of affairs would exist in Australia under the Railway Commissioners, but the contrary was the case, and the complaints heard on every hand m. Australia were very numerous. He had gone over principally to enquire into the conditions of the employees, and he had brought back sufficient information to show that both in regard to jvages, the conditions under which , the men worked, the cost per mile of maintenance —n work, by. the way, charged to capital in Australia and working expenses in New Zealand—the Dominion's railways were on far sounder lines than they were in Australia. ' While "the Australian Commissioners paid higher salaries to the 'six or eight bigger men in the Department, they paid much less than New Zealand to the rank and file, while the conditions were better in the Dominion. The Minister said that he had been led to tliink ( that the Railway Commissioners were free from political control. but their statements to him disproved this. One of the Commissioners had said to him: i- lt is 110 use my doing anything, because ah Act of Parliament, is immediately brought, down to override, it." Ai'fother Commissioner had assured hjm that hq would infinitely, prefer a member's recommendation to anybody else, because he knew where lie was with a member. He had averaged, the wages paid .to every railway employee in. New. Zealand and tin' Australian States, and they were as follows: —

£. Sew. Zealand ••• ••• 14J Victoria ••• 136 Queensland ... ••• 122 Now South Wales ... 120 South Australia ••• ••• 119 That included the whole of the service. A comparison of the increases in wages was a Ist! favorable to ew Zealand, especially in the lower grades. Tlie Minister went on to give a detailed com parison of -the wages paid in Australasia as follows: — —Traffic Managers. — Now Zealand ... ... 516 New South Wales ... 569 'Victoria ... ... .... 488, (Jiieciislnnd ... 492 —Clerical Staff.— v New Zealand ... • ■■■ 236 New South Wales 282 Victoria ... 206 —Cadets. — l New Zealand ... -74 .. New South Wales ... 69 Victoria , 62 Queensland ... 4b —Porters. —' New Zealand ... 129 New South Wales . ... 10G Victoria ••• H2 Queonsland ••• •>'>

Ri'dit- throughout the lower grades, said Ml- Millar, the New Zealand men are receiving higher pay both annually and daily, with the exception of.enginedrivers. 'but in Australia there is a different 'system of working and classihcation. In Queensland, for instance, 12s Gd a day is paid to engine-drivers. but onlv 20 per cent, receive that sum, while 33 per cent, get less than that, and -18 per cent, the lowest ol the lot. Since' 1895. when the New Zealand Government took the railways over from the Commissioners, concessions to the amount of £2.000,000 had been given. If the reductions had not been made the Government would got £2,000.000 more out of the pioneers for railway carriage. The total annual concession on 'agricultural products was worth £118.809. The aggregate concessions on grain alone since l8;/5 £492.712, and on woo! since i 902 £220,000, while similar benefits had been given in many other directions. Comparing the rates in New Zealand with those in Australia, said Mr -Millar, the Australian rates were generaHy lower ou short runs, but lor long distance haulage the Dominion rates were lower. This, Mr Millar remarked ironically, was how the Commissioners .studied the farmer, and this war. the svstem that the Leader of the Opposition and Mr llerdman would have introduced in New Zealand. - Mr M.assey: 1 have never admitted, it. (Cries of ' Oh.!") • . • The Minister asked, in view of the comparisons he had made, whether it could trillv be said that the New Zealand Government was not studying the public more than the Australian commissioners were doing, especially ii hen the reductions given in freight and the difficulties under which New Zealand : was working were considered. Jn New South Wales, for instance, eoal cost 6s 5d a ton and in Victoria there was a contract for 243,000 tons at the same price, while the cheapest bituminous coal that could be got in New Zealand cost 21s 10d to 22s 6d a ton. Remarking on the charge that New Zealand lines were being starved so tar as maintenance was concerned. Mr Millar declared that the position was very much better locally than in Australia, in spite of the comparison, advanced. In New Zealand the average annual maintenance expenditure was about £2lb per mile, while in Australia he was informed bv one of the Commissioners that a district engineer was caUed rmon .for an explanation if he spent £12(1 a 'mile on maintenance. The average spent per mile in Queensland was not more than £6O. New Zealand rolling stock was on the average much better kept than Australian rolling stock. Taking into consideration" the cost of maintenance, the conditions under which the men worked,, the wages and salaries, tlie conveniences granted to the public, and the fares charged, any .unbiassed person must admit that New Zealand had very little indeed to learn from Australia in regard to railwayman ageinent.