PARLIAMENT

Southland Times, Issue 20609, 6 October 1928, Page 8

PARLIAMENT

RAILWAYS BILL APPOINTMENT OF GENERAL MANAGER HOSTILE CRITICISM BY OPPOSITION (Per United Press Association.) Wellington, • October 5. The House of Representatives met at 2.30 p.m. Replying to the Leader of the Opposition, th? PRIME MINISTER said he did not think any good purpose could be served by setting up a commission to inquire into the short time worked in the State mine at Greymouth. Three days recently had been lost, two because the bar could not be worked owing to bad weather and one because the whole of the men stopped work on account of two men who supplied dirty coal being put off. It was a recognized practice that when men supplied dirty coal they were put down at the bottom of the list but on this occasion the whole show stopped. MR HOLLAND said that the practice was sometimes used as a species of victimization. The PRIME MINISTER said he could scarcely credit that but he would inquire into the suggestion. At all events the men should be very careful before they adopted the extreme step of stopping work, otherwise one of these days someone might grow tired of that sort of thing and say there is too much coal on the market and we will close down. Auckland's Potatoes. The HON. A. D. McLEOD replying to Mr M. J. Savage said he had read the Auckland report that potatoes had been cornered and abnormal prices were being charged for them. He understood that the position was only a temporary one and would be readjusted when the new season’s potatoes came on the market. The officers of his Department would certainly report to him if there were indications that firms were acting in restraint of trade. Tawa Flat Deviation. The HON. K. S. WILLIAMS informed Mr P. Fraser that he had not yet received any information as to the report that 20 men had been paid off at the Tawa Flat deviation work. He would inform the member what action he would take when he received a report on the position. Central Otago Irrigation. THE RT. HON. J. G. COATES in reply to a question from Mr T. K. Sidey, stated that he had received the report of the Central Otago Irrigation Committee and as soon as he had gone through it he would make it known to the Press. General Election. Replying to Sir Joseph Ward, the PRIME MINISTER said that the general election would not be held during Christchurch show’ week. It would be either before show week or after it. (Laughter.) National Reserves. The MINISTER OF LANDS moved that the amendments made by the Legislative Council in the Reserves, Domains and National Park Bill be agreed to. These amendments w’ere purely formal. The amendments were agreed to. Police Superannuation. Th? HON. F. J. ROLLESTON made the promised statement on the subject of police superannuation during the course of which he said that for several reasons the Government. while appreciating the value to the community of the services rendered by the police force, had decided that further consideration was necessary before any alteration was made in the existing superannuation benefits and consequently it was not advisable to introduce legislation on t-he subject this session. Police superannuation cannot be dealt with apart from a general scheme as applicable to the rest of the Public Service. The w’hole matter was now being investigated and would receive careful consideration during the recess. Auckland’s Transport. By Governor-General’s message, the Auckland Transport Board Bill was introduced. MR T. M. WILFORD asked if the Bill was a local Bill. MR SPEAKER said he was not able to say as he had rot seen the Bill. Replying to Mr Savage, the PRIME MINISTER said he understood that the Bill was a complete reflection of the agreement reached by the interested parties. MR WILFORD objected to the “interested parties” meeting secretly and deciding what legislation should pass the House. He did not desire to interfere with another member’s district but he had the right to know what was being done. Were all the parties concerned in complete agreement? The PRIME MINISTER said that was so. The Bill w r as read the first time. Amendments were also introduced to th? Christchurch Hospital Amendment Bill and read the first time. The Railways. In moving the second reading of the Government Railways Amendment Bill, the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates said that one of the important features of the Bill provided for the appointment of a General Manager of Railways. The Bill also gave the General Manager instead of the Minister, power to make appointments and promotions to officers in the service. This only amounted to a definition of the administration as it had been for many years. Another feature of the Bill was provision of a sick benefit fund for railway employees and gave the Government power to subsidize the fund out of the W’orking Railways Account. Mr Coates stated that th? Government was fortunate in obtaining the services of Mr Sterling, the General Manager of Railways, who was a man of ability that would earn him considerable distinction. The Bill defined the rights of the General Manager in relation to superannuation. The manager had to make certain payments into the fund and on completing 40 years’ service to the Department would be entitled to superannuation amounting to £2300 per year.

MR H. E. HOLLAND, Leader of the Opposition, said that the Prime Minister had omitted to deal with a very important aspect of the Bill. He claimed that the Government- had resorted to illegality in abolishing the Railways Board and appointing a General Manager without statutory authority. The position was that the Government thought itself safe with its huge majority to take this illegal step. So far as the appointment of the General Manager was concerned, Mr Holland said he had no fault to find with his qualifications, but he was not satisfied that the position was worth £3500 per year. The General Manager was being permitted to bridge the gap in his broken service to count for superannuation. Mr Holland instanced cases where other railway servants had been unable to gain such a concession despite the fact that the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants had been endeavouring to secure such rights for years. He asked why the principle should not be applied to the rank and file of the railway service and moved an amendment that the Bill be referred back to the Government to make provision in the direction he had indicated.

MR E. J. HOWARD seconded the amendment. He said he felt somewhat confident that the Minister would accept it. He still thought that the Board was the correct way to run the railway service though he was most satisfied that the board had not been run in the right way. It had failed because it had attempted to carry out the business from a central point. It seemed to him that there should have been a board of three with central North Island and South Island representatives. He suggested that if there was to be a General Manager he should not always be appointed from the clerical side of the service. He should also have mechanical qualifications.

Division On Amendment. A division was called for and the amendment was defeated by 41 votes to 17. MR W. A. VEITCH considered that the appointment of Mr Sterling was the result of panic. He did not agree w’ith the superannuation proposal with regard to the General Manager, establishing as it did the right to bridge broken time which would never have been granted to those in lower ranks. MR W. S. GLENN considered that Mr Sterling was one of the brightest ornaments in the railway service. A hon. member: We don’t want ornaments. Continuing, MR GLENN highly approved of the General Manager having a private car. By this manner he could travel over the country and transact business and meet people as he went instead of being shut up in the head office. MR W. E. PARRY declared that it was quite wrong that a public servant should be paid a higher salary than the Prime Minister. The appointment of Mr Sterling was an illegal action and not a single Government supporter had protested against it. The discussion was proceding when the House adjourned at 5.30 till 7.30. Evening Session. MR A. HARRIS criticized the proposal in the Bill to establish a sick and benefit fund for railway employees as interfering with the work of Friendly Societies. This might resuit in a demand from the Friendly Societies for subvention and if that demand was made, no Government would be strong enough to withstand it. He suggested a conference between the Government and Friendly Societies to discuss the situation likely to arise. SIR JOSEPH WARD said he agreed with the appointment of Mr Stirling as General Manager as he was long known as one of the smartest railway men we had ever had. Personally he never agreed with management by the Railway Board. Such a great Department should be under a General Manager responsible to the Minister but while he approved of Mr Stirling’s appointment and he did not think he was being paid too much, he did object to his being brought back into the railway service on terms which would cause rankling in the hearts of railway men and discontent in the ranks of other Departments. Everyone knew’ the basis of the railway superannuation fund. All demands for reinstatement of men who left the service had been resisted in the interests of the fund but now that the rule had been broken down, how could demands for similar concessions from other officers be refused with justice? It would have been better to have given Mr Sterling £SOOO per year and no superannuation than to have reinstated him in the fund in the way that had been done. If the Government at any time proposed to reinstate the rank and file of railway employees in the superannuation fund he would vote for it no matter what it would cost because it was not right to play ducks and drakes with that fund by discriminating between high typed and low paid officers. He warned railway employees against rushing into an extensive scheme of sick benefit which would alienate public opinion and antagonize large and powerful friendly societies whose good feeling was worth cultivating. MR D. JONES (Ellesmere) suggested that the Leader of the Opposition was actually of the opinion that the Prime Minister with two-thirds of the members behind him should have called Parliament together before taking action to meet the railway problem.’ This was not the view taken by Englishmen who honoured Disraeli when he took prompt advantage of the opportunity to purchase a controlling interest in the Suez Canal and got Parliamentary authority afterwards. MR D. G. SULLIVAN commenting upon the appointment of the General Manager of Railways when the law provided for management by board, said it was a most dangerous principle when the Government felt bound by law when it suited them and to do what they liked when it was convenient to do as they pleased. So far as the sick benefit fund was concerned, he felt that as a large employer the Government was quite justified in what they were doing. When the salary paid to the General Manager was compared with the salaries paid to other heads of large departments, the Engineer in Chief of the Public Works Department for instance, it was hard to find justification for it. It was also impossible to justify the breaking of the law in the flagrant way in which it had been broken. A “Panic” Appointment. MR J. A. LEE (Auckland East) condemned the appointment of Mr Sterling as General Manager as a “panic” appointment. MR V. S. POTTER approved of the Bill as a validating agreement arrived at between the Government and Mr Sterling in the making of which the Government did the right tfyng. Th? Minister of Education, the HON. R. A. WRIGHT, said the honest and considered opinion of Cabinet was that Mr Sterling was the only man capable of filling the position of General Manager. When the emergency arose requiring the sendees of a capable man, Mr Sterling was in the position to dictate his own terms and Mr Wright failed to see how any body of business men could fail to see that the Government had to come to terms. No one on the Opposition side had alleged that Mr Sterling was incapable so why should the appointment be subjected to so much criticism ? The Minister said he would be surprised if the Labour Party during the election campaign did not make a song from one end of New Zealand to the other concerning railway losses. The Opposition’s criticism was unjust and unbusinesslike. A Wise Move. Mr M. J. SAMUEL contended that New Zealand had lost many brilliant men because they had been offered much higher salaries abroad. An outstanding case was that of an ex-director of the dairy division on £9OO, who left to take up a similar position in the Argentine at £3OOO a year and all expenses. Realizing that a good man could command his own terms, the Prime Minister had done a wise thing in making the General Manager’s appointment. MR P. FRASER said he has good grounds to believe that Mr Sterling’s services could have been retained for a less figure than he had been recalled at. It would be well if the Prime Minister told the House what militated against the successful functioning of the board. Did the "ooard’s activities result in the railways being placed in such a desperate condition that Mr Sterling’s appointment had became essential ? It was difficult to believe that the Railway Board resigned voluntarily. Up to the present the Prime Minister had not made it clear that the railways were in such desperate straits that he had to set aside the law regarding the Railway Board and appoint a General Manager at £3500 a year with the right to retire on £2300 a year after eight years, It was certainly a tremendous remuneration in New Zealand. Mr Coates Replies. MR COATES replying to the criticism scouted the idea that the appointment of a General Manager was illegal. The Government had the right to take the action it did and then come to Parliament for validation. All local bodies asked Parliament to validate their actions and the Christchurch City Council largely composed of Labour men was the greatest offender in this respect. The late General Manager, Mr McVilly for whom Mr Coates had the greatest respect, had been unable to get away from Wellington to see things for himself and it appeared that he was unable to make the best use of his abilities by reason of the system in operation in those years. Railway officers were almost afraid to move without written instructions from Wellington. Decentralization was the first essential step towards reorganization and the board was set up, Mr Sterling being a member. As for the allegation that his services could have been retained at low figures, Mr Coates assured the House that had the Government given him the salary that he left the board to earn, then there would be a howl throughout the country. Members of the board found the duties entailed great strain and when only one mem-

ber was left the Government had to consider what to do. Mr Coates claimed that what had been done was what any business body would do. Mr Coates referring to the complaints about superannuation rights said it was not the first time Parliament had agreed to the reinstatment of superannuation rights. There had been several cases including those of Connolly, M. J. Mack and Hampton and two others. Why single out Mr Sterling’s case when he had been away only two and a-half years? The General Manager had a big say concerning the terms on which he would come back to the railways. Mr Goodfellow, chairman of the New Zealand Co-operative Dairy Company would have given Mr Sterling a great deal more to stay in his position with the Dairy Company. Mr Sterling never wanted to come back but having once made up his mind to help the railways through the most difficult period in history, he had gone ahead and never murmured. Mr Coates said he was grateful to Mr Goodfellow for the manner in which he acted in letting Mr Sterling go. Second Reading Agreed To. This closed the debate and at 11.20 the second reading was agreed to on the voices. The managers on the subject of the Canterbury Provincial Council Buildings Vesting Bill reported that they had agreed to the inclusion of Canterbury members of the Legislative Council on the board of management and the report was adopted. Summer Time Bill. By Governor-General's message the Summer Time Bill was introduced. MR T. K. SIDEY asked the Government if the Bill gave effect to the recommendations of the committee which recently considered this question. MR P. FRASER said the mandate of the country was for an hour of summer time and now that the Government was convinced that the principle of summer time was right, there would be no grudging acquiesence in the will of the people and that there be no half hour but a full hour as was enjoyed last summer. MR M. J. SAMUEL said he regretted the challenge thrown out by Mr Fraser to those who had been opposed to the Bill earlier in the session. This was a time of compromise and sweet reasonableness. There was an endeavour to place the Bill on the Statute Book in an experimental form and in such a way as to meet the wishes of the majority of the people and when he found a challenge thrown out by the member for Wellington Central it made his British blood boil if for no other reason than that it was a compliment to Mr Sidey. He wished the measure well. The HON W. DOWNIE STEWART said the Bill advanced the standard time from the second Sunday in October till the third Sunday in March. So far as the shearing and threshing industries were concerned, the Bill contained the same provision as the last Bill, viz., that they can work to standard time unless they agree to work to summer time. Replying to Mr Holland, MR STEWART said that not all the members of the Government Party would vote for the Bill but it was felt it would receive such a volume of support as would secure its passage into law. The Bill was read the first time. The HON. K. S. WILLIAMS moved the second reading of the Electric Power Boards Amendment Bill, which was agreed to. The HON. W. DOWNIE STEWART moved the second reading of the Summertime Bill. Explaining the provisions, MR T. K. SIDEY thanked the Government for bringing down the Bill, and expressed regret that the people were not to get the advantage of a full hour. However, the Bill was another step towards his ideal and for that he was grateful. The Bill was read the second time on the voices. The House went into Committee on the Railway Amendment Bill. At caluse five which authorizes the payment of a subsidy to the sick benefit fund out of the Railway Working account, MR. A. HARRIS said he would call for a division against it being unfair to the Friendly Societies. He would like to see a conference on the subject as he believed the Friendly would take over the fund and administer it. MR P. FRASER argued that this fund was a matter between employer and employees and was a perfectly proper arrangement. MR. J. DICKSON (Parnell) said that if Mr. Harris did not call for a division he as a Friendly Society man would. This was a subsidy out of a public fund and not an increase in wages. If sickness insurance was made applicable to all members of the State the Friendly Society would support it but not a special fund such as this. The PRIME MINISTER contended that there was the greatest difference between this fund and the benefits given by Friendly Societies. This fund would not do the slightest harm to Friendly Societies. On a division the clause was agreed to bv 42 to 13. The remainder of the clauses were agreed to and the Bill was reported without amendment. The Electric Power Boards Amendment Bill was also recorded from the committee without amendment. The House then went into committee on the Summer Time Bill which was put through the committee stage without amendment. The House was left sitting.