RAILWAYS MANAGER

Taranaki Daily News, 6 October 1928, Page 15

RAILWAYS MANAGER

APPOINTMENT CRITICISED ATTACK BY THE OPPOSITION SUPERANNUATION PROVISO DEFENCE BY THE PREMIER Telegraph.—Press Assoclatlcs. Wellington, Last Night. Hoving in the House of Representatives to-day the second leadin'- of the Government Railways Amendment Bill, the Prime Minister said 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 of officers in the service, but this only amounted to a definition of the administration as it had been for many years. Another feature of the Bill was the provision of a sick benefits fund for railway employees, giving the Government power to subsidise the fund out of the working railways account. ' Mr. Coates stated the Government was fortunate in obtaining the services of Mr. H. H. Stirling as General Manager of Railways. He 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 forty years’ service in the department would be entitled to superannuation amounting to £2300 a year.

Mr. H. E. Holland, Leader of the Opposition, said 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 Railway 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. CONCESSION NOT GENERAL. 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 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, but 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 tile 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 and said he felt somewhat confident the Minister would accept it. He still thought a board was the correct way to run the railway service, though he was not satisfied the board had been run in the right way. It had failed because it had attempted to carry out its business from a central point. It seemed to him 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. A division was called for and the amendment was defeated by 41 votes to 17. Mr. W. A. Veitch considered the appointment of Mr. Stirling was the result of panic. He did not agree with the superannuation proposal with regard to the general manager, establishing as it did the right to bridge broken time which had never been granted to those in the lower ranks. Mr. W. S. Glenn considered Mr. Stirling w as one of the brightest ornaments in the railway service. A member: “We don’t want ornaments!” Mr. Glenn approved of the general manager having a private car. By this means he could travel over thd country and transact business and meet people as he wenf, instead of being shut up in the head office. HIGHER SALARY THAN PREMIER. Mr. W. E. Parry declared it was wrong that a public servant should be paid a higher salary than the Prime Minister. The appointment of Mr. Stirling was an illegal action, and not a single Government supporter had protested against it. Mr. A. Harris criticised the proposal in the Bill to establish a sick and benefit fund for railway employees as interfering with the work of the friendly societies. This might result 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 the friendly societies to discuss the

situation which was likely to arise. Sir Joseph Ward said he agreed with the appointment of Mr. Stirling as general manager, as he was long known as qpe of the smartest railwaymen we ever had. Personally, he never had agreed with management by a railway board. Sueh a great department should be under a general manager responsible to the Minister. But while ho 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 railwaymen and discontent in the ranks of other departments.

Everyone knew the basis of the railway superannuation fund, and all demands for the reinstatement of men who had left the service had been resisted in the interests of the fund. Now that the rule had been broken down how could demands for a similar concession from other officers be refused with justice? It would have been better to have given Mr. Stirling £5OOO 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 eost, because it was not right to play ducks and drakes with that fund by discriminating between highly paid and lowly paid officers. Sir Joseph warned railway employees scheme of sick benefit which would

against rushing into an extensive alienate public opinion and antagonise large and powerful friendly societies whose good feeling was worth cultivating.

Mr. D. Jones suggested the Leader of the Opposition was actually of opinion that the Prime Minister, with twothirds 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 the Englishmen who honoured Disraeli when he took prompt advantage of the opportunity to purchase a controlling interest in the Suez Canal and secured Parliamentary authority afterwards.

Mr. D. G. Sullivan, commenting upon the appointment of the general manager when the law provided for management by a board, said it was a most dangerous principle when the Government felt bound by law when it suited it and to do what it liked when it was convenient to do as it pleased. So far as the sick benefit fund was concerned he felt that as a large employer the Government was quite justified in what it was doing.

The Hon. R. A. Wright said the honest and considered opinion of Cabinet was that Mr. Stirling was the only man capable of filling the position. When the emergency arose requiring the services of a capable man, Mr. Stirling was in a 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 those terms. No one on the Opposition side had alleged that Mr. Stirling 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 the railway losses. The Opposition’s criticism was unjust and unbusinesslike. BIGGER SALARIES ABROAD. Mr. A. M. 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-Direetor of the Dairy Division. Receiving a salary of £9OO, he left to take up a similar position in Argentina at £3OOO a year and all expenses. Realising 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 had good grounds to believe that Mr. Stirling’s services could have been retained for less money. It would be well if the Prime Minister told the House what militated against the successful functioning of the board. Did the board’s activities result in the railways being placed in such a desperate condition that Mr. Stirling’s appointment 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 sueh desperate straits that he had to set aside the lew regarding the railway board and appoint a general manager at £3500 a year with a right to retire on £2300 a year after eight years —certainly a tremendous remuneration in New Zealand. Mr. Coates scouted the idea that the appointment was illegal. The Government had a right to take the action it did and then come to Parliament f r 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. Decentralisation was the first essential step tow'ards reorganisation, and the board was set up, Mr. Stirling being a member.

As for the allegations that his services could have been retained at a lower figure, Mr. Coates assured the House that had the Government given him the salary he left the board to earn there would have been a howl throughout the country. Members of the board found the duties entailed a great strain, and when only one member was left the Government had to consider what to do. Mr. Coates claimed that what had been done was what any business men would do.

Referring to complaints about superannuation rights, Mr. Coates said it was not the first time Parliament had agreed to the reinstatement of superannuation. There had been several cases, including those of Messrs. Connolly, M. J. Slack and Hampton, and two others. | Why single out Mr. Stirling’s case when he had been away only two and a-half years ?

Mr. Goodfellow, chairman of the New Zealand Dairy Company, would have given Mr. Stirling a great deal more to stay in his position with the company. Mr. Stirling never wanted to go back, but, having once made up his mind to help the railways through the most difficult period in its 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. Stirling go. This closed the debate, and at 11.20 p.m. the second reading of the Bill was agreed to on the voices. The House then went into committee on the Bill. At clause five, which authorises 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 societies would take over the fund and administer it. The Prime Minister contended there was the greatest difference between this fund and the benefits given by the friendly societies. This fund would not do the slightest harm to the friendly societies. On a division the clause was agreed to by 42 votes to 13. The remainder of the clauses were agreed to and the Bill was reported without amendment.