RAILWAYS BILL

Wairarapa Times-Age, 28 March 1944, Page 3

RAILWAYS BILL

PASSED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL WAGE TRIBUNAL. APPROVED BY BOTH PARTIES. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, This Day. Although the Government Railways Amendment Bill was supported in principle by the Opposition and criticised only in some details, the second reading debate on the Bill occupied the House of Representatives during the greater part of yesterday s sitting and the measure was not put through its final stages until 11 p.m. A feature of the debate was a charge of inconsistency levelled at the Government by the member for Masterton (Mr G. H. Mackley). The charge was denied by the former Minister of Railways (Mr Sullivan) and the present Minister (Mr Semple). / REMOVAL OF ANOMALIES Explaining the Bill, Mr Semple, said it affected 24,000 employees. It was hoped that the establishment of the tribunal would straighten out anomalies in the railway service and bring goodwill and co-operation. He was not suggesting there was any pronounced unrest in the service, but there were anomalies which the Government wanted to put right. The constitution of the tribunal, said Mr Semple, was similar to the Court of Arbitration, which would have been quite acceptable to the Government, but the rdailwaymen wished to have their own separate tribunal. There need be no fears that the two members of the tribunal sitting with the chairman would outvote him. There was no instance where the assessors had outvoted the judge of the Court of Arbitration. If Sir Francis Frazer were to sit as chairman he would be in the capacity of a civil servant rather than a judge. “If this tribunal is given a trial I am sure it will function well,” said the Minister. “The four railwaymen’s organisations are unanimously in favour of the Bill. The more you take men into your confidence and make them feel they are part of the service in which they are employed, lhe better the results you will get in harmony and co-operation. The Bill attempts to bring the men together under their own tribunal, where they can speak for themselves in front of their own representatives.” “MINISTERIAL SOMERSAULT” The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Holland) said he was glad to accept the idea of the special tribunal, but he thought the Bill should be altered to ensure that the judge could not be outvoted by the two railwaymen’s representatives on the tribunal. “Obviously Sir Francis Frazer will be appointed chairman, and that is a very good thing,” said Mr Holland, “but the Bill should be amended to ensure that all decisions are signed by the chairman.” He noted with interest, said Mr Holland, that the Bill removed Ministerial control as far as wages and conditions of employment were concerned. That amounted to a Ministerial somersault, and it was refreshing to see that some things the Opposition objected to in days gone by were being recognised by the Government. It was clear that the Minister did not want any more reports or recommendations, and wished to shed responsibility for the railwaymen’s wages and conditions. The principle of access to the Minister, formerly much insisted on by the Government, had been sacrificed. The Minister now said in effect to the railwaymen, “Take your case to the tribunal; I am powerless.” If he were the Minister he would say the same. The tribunal would give the men confidence that they were no longer to be regarded as a political football. “It should not be allowed to go out from this House that the men will automatically get a rise in wages,” said Mr Holland. “Stabilisation comes into this.” Mr Semple: Any order of the tribunal is subject, to stabilisation and must be submitted to the Stabilisation Commission. The men have been told about that. PREMIER’S ASSURANCE. The Prime Minister said he could assure the Leader of the Opposition that his point concerning the possible outvoting of the chairman had received earnest consideration. Every order issued by the tribunal would be signed by the chairman. There was no difference in that particular between the Court of Arbitration and the tribunal proposed in the Bill. It was considered wise to give the tribunal mandatory powers, as otherwise it might be rasher in its recommendations and make some that could not be carried out. There was no reason why the Government as an employer of thousands of men should not also be subject to decisions of bodies that decided industrial conditions for workers, and that was the function of this tribunal. It was not always possible for the Government to compete with private employers for labour when high wages were being offered, but in normal times State employees’ conditions should be ahead of those of private employers. He would be sorry if through this Bill the doors of the general manager and the Minister should be closed to employees, but he did not expect that would happen. MR MACKLEY’S CRITICISM. Mr Mackley said the Amendment Act of 1936 had given the Government all the powers necessary to deal with the interests of the railwaymen. “The only thing that was lacking was goodwill on the part of the Government,” he added. Whdh he read the Ministers’ speeches of 1936 when the Railway Board was abolished he wondered what had now caused the Government to change its mind. He alleged the Government was inconsistent in that it/ had in 1936 said it was opposed to handing over the control of the railways to non-representative bodies and was now divorcing itself from that doctrine through this Bill. The Prime Minister:. “Is the honourable member opposing the Bill?" Mr Mackley: “I am not, but many points in it cause me to have a lack of faith.” Referring to the loyal service of lhe railwaymen, Mr Mackley said that if the coal miners had paid the same strict attention to their jobs as had the railwaymen and worked as hard then the country would not today be suffering from the disabilities reflected in the restrictions and shortage of coal. The Prime Minister interjected that

coal production was higher than ever before. Important officers in the railway organisations were not enamoured of the Bill, said Mr Mackley. In view of the stabilisation regulations, bringing the Bill down now was tantamount to offering the men a valueless coin. MINISTERS IN REPLY. The Minister of Supply, Mr Sullivan, said Mr Mackley, when general manager. had approved of dispensing with the Railways Board, and he could not at that time go as far as he did in his attacks on the board and the former manager. "I did not doubt his sincerity in his hatred of the board and the then manager,” added the Minister. He said the member had been inconsistent in attacking the Government while saying he would not oppose the Bill. The Minister and the general manager would still manage the railways just as a business man managed his business who must adhere to decisions of the Arbitration Court on wages and conditions. Stabilisation must be a factor guiding the Government,, the Arbitration Court and tribunals, otherwise this country was going to be threatened with the worst sort of disaster, short of invasion itself. Mr Bodkin (Opposition. Central Otago) said that all the railwaymen were asking for was a living wage. The Government had to modify its proposals so far as stabilisation was concerned to put the men on a living wage. He realised the need for stabilisation, but it had caught thousands of men in the Public Service on a standard of pay that was ridiculously low. The powers of the tribunal were limited by stabilisation. Replying to the debate, Mr Semple said that’ for the Opposition to suggest it was something new for him to advocate a tribunal to fix wages and conditions was not in keeping with the facts. The proposed tribunal had no relationship to the abolition of the Railways Board, which usurped the functions of Government. He thought the time had come in all industries when more notice should be taken of the men who worked in them. The general trend today was that lhe working men should be’given a share in management, and when the Bill went through he intended to discuss with the officers the question of running the workshops on a co-operative basis. The Minister said the average wage of the men affected by the Bill was £227 per annum when the Governmcn came into office, but today it was £347. He was not arguing that was enough. The money going into the pockets of these men today was £2,500.000 more than what it was before the Labour Government came in.

The Bill was read a second time, put through the remaining stages and passed.