POWER OF VETO

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17631, 22 May 1919, Page 6

POWER OF VETO

LONG-TON APPEAL CASE.

FURTHER. PROTESTS.

~,T aatl 9? of the Minister of Eailwayi (tne Hon. W. H. Henries) in exercising hii Power of veto in connection -with the Long--ton appeal case, wnere the Railway Appeal Board unanimously decided to allow the ta- S*£ defi^¥- statsment f™ l * *•» Minister settag out hs reasons is being a-waited Iri ™ I ?i eieet are rattier guarded, as it is felt generally that the department should ,havl a full MV A XfiFE* a fan* 7 1 a T MAria y, secretary of. the New Zealand Locpmotive. EnginW, Kremenl 7^ ?rs Asso <= i ation, speaking to a (WeUmgton) reporter, SdlTthe deasjon of the Minister to exercise veto m cases of discipline of such a nate J a^ *« l^r r mnch confidence m toe board, and would not have much confidence untfl ite decisions w«re fa.l Mi on this occasion of the Minister's veto on. such flimsy grounds la S/th rtT leads stand that all future similar cases will ba tinted hkewise," stated Mr Sy "Iα }te past the Te to has only when it was a question of public safety and It will, therefore, be dearly understood whv anmosity being latest decision The given on 4is

TL* Wa ? **&»*** to tL* * tho decsaoa which had been vetoed was a unanimous one K the £ partaent made up its mind as to thTatti K F3? °I Chanoe tbTdep^ SSd departm3Dt had •■ d °V' The Wellington branch of the RFC A C Minlst^ tio^ Sfcro ? gl7 te°£™££if 2SJS3& safestMTNISTERIAL ATTITUDE. INTERESTING EVIDENCE RECALLED. Some interesting evidence on the Minisof veto was given before the Raoiwaya Committee of the House of Renre! in 1911, ?^m the §EO3rs Institute petitioned for certain forms. The secretary of the c^^tion officers shall be equally &3 PP ?£a Board i_that the board shall be

an Appeal Board more to its liking XT ever, some evidence was riven at the inquiry by Mr R. W. General Manager of Railways. MrM<vX stated m referent to the request that the , board's decisions should be final- «E*d£ Minister, without exception, had definitely deeded to admit a principle whichTtiey of the Railway Department in the hands of irresponsible people." He quoted dhJoseph Ward as eaying.--" There must, be a responsible head, and there must be some! one responsible to the people of the country: and if the responsibility in connection with the railway service was taken away from those who control the affairs of the colony, and handed over to anyone who h not responsible to the colony, you would require to supersede the Minister himself That will show how impossible it would be to give effect to such a proposal" Mr M'Villy showed how successive Ministers of Railways had adopted precisely the same attitude.

During his cross-examination, Mr M'Viily made some interesting comments which have some reference to the present case which involved «. breach of discipline. Uii answer to the chairman, he stated- "I should like to say this: That, except in rare cases where the public safety is involved, like that position at Marton (tho M'Gurk case), the department and the Minister have never interfered. If it comes to a question of law, there is the law, and the veto has to be exercised, but you can see from tho number of cases that the department has accepted the decision generally."

The departmental report to the committee was signed by Mr T. Ronayne, and had this to say regarding the Appeal Board: "The Appeal Board, as at present constituted, has been in operation since 1897. Tho board has done good work, and there is no cogent reason why the present constitution of the board should be altered; but in any case, no matter what the board is, it is imperative that the Minister in Charge of the Department should retain the power to finally determine tho matter, or, in other words, that the decision of the board should be subject to the veto of the Miniates In no other way can the best interests of the public and the department be preserved." The case for the railway officers was summed up by Mr J. Young in these terms: "It is a very difficult matter to overcome. There is no donbt that an appeal board which hears appeals against the decision of tho Minister is practically worthies when its work is also subject to the decision of the Minister. No Minister, having the power of veto, need allow his decisions to be upset, and it is obvious, therefore, that no member of the railway service can win a case unless the Minister iallows him to do so."