RAILWAY SERVICE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIV, 10 January 1931, Page 8

RAILWAY SERVICE

CHANGE OF CONTROL WAY TO EFFICIENCY (Associated Chambers of Commerce.) Very properly the first order of reference in the inquiry submitted by His Excellency the Governor-General to the recent Railway Commission directed that the members of that body should ascertain “whether the General organisation of the Railway Department is such as to produce the maximum of economy and efficiency in administration and operation.” Matters more intimately affecting the staff, however, were reserved for a later reference and they throw a good deal of suggestive light upon the advantages of independent control over ministerial control. ‘The references made here,” the paragraph runs, “will be mainly along the lines of a review of the position as the result of the active participation in the management of the Department by the Ministerial head. It has been definitely stated in evidence before the Commission that the financial operations of the Department and the -general efficiency of the staff is adversely affected by the present method of administration. By this is meant that the- full measure of efficient service cannot be obtained from the staff, which numbers approximately 20,000, when the responsible officers have, to all intents and purposes, no effective control. Under the present system of administration, with the Ministerial head actively engaged in the management, it is imperative that all staff matters - should be centralised at Head office, and the Minister, dealing in many cases with staff questions more from the viewpoint of policy than of efficiency, may be required to make decisions which cannot bo considered sound and prudent when these devisions are viewed ill the light of the economical working of the railways. Several instances, extending over a period of many years, have been brought under notice of the Commission where substantial savings could have been effected by a reduction ill the staff, but these reductions were not made by reason of the fact that they were not sanctioned by the Minister. In other cases, where certain tradesmen were required 'to undertake special work, the system of central control caused a period of some months to elapse before the full number required were engaged, whereas the positions could have been filled in, say, one week, had the officer responsible for the work authority to engage the men without protracted correspondence with the Head Office. It is apparent to us that the Minister, as head of the Department, must be continually occupied with petty matters affecting the staff which, under the present system, are brought under his notice, hut which m our opinion should be dealt with by the responsible officers without reference to the Minister.” With the Government of the country engaged in the administration and management of the railways, the Commission goes on to say, it is not possible to achieve the best results. and in order to formulate proposals with a view to relieving the Minister of his present responsibilities your Commission has considered the method of control adopted in other countries. In practically every country in the world it has been shown that the best result is not obtained through an intimate control as between the management and the Government. The position in the Dominion calls for drastic and immediate action, and the transfer of management to persons not subject to political influence.

The endeavour to effect a joint control of the railways is unfair both to the ministerial head and to the management, and it is submitted that the further the functions of Government of the country and the control of the railways can he separated the better will be the result, of the railway operations.