PARLIAMENT.

Taihape Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3325, 1 November 1919, Page 5

PARLIAMENT.

RAILWAY BILL.

MR MASSEY REPLIES‘

WELLINGTON, Vt-ihs day.

After we ‘telegraph office closed, discussion on the Railway Bill was carried on by Messrs Mandel‘, Buddo, Dickson, Young, and Poland. At 2.30 -a.m, Ml- - rose to reply, and said one_ point he wished to make quite clear was that the "Bill was based on the arrangement made with the railway servants in March last, and Ithere was‘ not a, figure in the schedules of which they did not approve.

Members interrupted that they had not seen the whole of the schedules. Mr Massey retorted that -they had seen all the schedules in which they were interested. Defending the effect of the Bill on superannu=ati~on, ‘he said i there was only one oflicei who could rel tire at once. Of six officers who» were being promotccl, Ithrec cannot retire on the maximum for five years, one for four years, and one for three years, so that the effect could not be serious. Members had asked for a._,bonus for linen in the lower gnade. To give the men a bonus.of 1/ a day it_cost £280,000 per annum. It was quite easy to say, but it must be remembered no bonus could rest‘ with the 'Railway Deipartment. If it. was given to one branch of the Public Service it must be Lriven to all. He quoted figures, land 1 showed the {average earnings of the men were greater than the schedule rates, because of the better conditions i brought about by the Minister of Railways in April last. He cdnipared the }increases made by the Bill- of 1911, which absorbed £22,000, with increases ‘ in the present Bill, contending his pro- } posal-s were infinitely better than [those of the late Hon. Mr Miller, and ‘in answer to the charge that his'Bill I was an electioneering move,- he pointed|out the Bill ofi 1911 was brought down lon the 25th October, just before the election. He then ‘proceeded to reply to arglllllellts’- m‘a'de« by, individuals, and only the subject of housing he announced l the Department was .-arranging fto erect [450 homes for employees, seventy of E,whicfh'wel-.e to be at Frank~ton._ .., He ‘;c.ompare.d the payme’nts_.made_ in _.A_u.s:§ ‘ tralianj States with New Zealand gpay-, l ments, and in answer to an in‘terje‘cit.on,'= the said he, did not believe any membexr l of. the -railway staE_.sho-uld be asked. -to.

work for a wage on which he was not able to pay his way; but the Government was doing -its best to meet the position under very exceptional circumstances. Ho moved-the second reading, which was agreed to at 2.55 am. The House went into.Committ,ce on the Bill. In cluase 2 Mr I-Ivolland ‘moved an amendment, moving thafhthe decisions of the Railway Appeal Board‘ be final_

The Pfeniier gaid he was unable to acceptithe amendmeint. jWhile ‘the Board was constituted as at 7present the Départnient h-ad no":-epresent2i_ti\}'ev onthe Board, and its interests must be protected. The late Minister of Railways had offered to abolish the veto if the Board was reconstructed so as to give the Department the same share of representation as the melt have.

Many members hesitated to sanction‘ the abolition of the veto, but all seemed to think it_should be exercised in! some different way. i

Sir J. G. Ward suggested the .power of exercising the veto might be delegated to a J udge of the Supreme Court.

Mr Holl-and replied that the power might as well be given to the Minister of Labour to veto decisions of the Arbitration Court as to maintain the present systeni of railway veto. On division the amendment was lost by 17 to 36, and the remaining clauses were passed unamended. Mr Young moved a. new clause by which members of the first division be promoted because of special merit and ability, but the Premier declared he could not accept the amendment, and Mr Young did not press it. On the question of the general managcr’s salary, £3OOO, Mr Holland moved its reduction by £IOOO. '

Aféer a brief discussion the amendment was lost by 11 to 42.

Sir J. G. Ward moved to reduce the salary of'the assistant general manager, £I2OO, by £1 as an indication that the House Was of opinion that members of the second division are entitled to consideration in view of the increases given to members of the first division. ” Mr Massey said if the amendment was carried he would have no option but to strike out ‘the Whole scredule,

as it would result in discouraging ‘every oflicer in the first division_ They must pay highly skilled men. He had already stated he Was Prepared to consult his colleagues With regard to doing something for _married men of the second division." ’ Mr Ell said the whole trouble was that crtain highly paid officers were‘ -having" their salaries raised on me eve of retirement with a view to ]oauing up the sup'e-rannuation fund. That was what was objected to. . Sir J. G, Ward. said he wished to protest-.again‘st thehigher salaries ‘be-mis'ed‘whi-le the men. of the second I

‘division could not.live'”'-on the salaries they received. ‘ Mr Holland said the Labour Party would vote on at straight out reducItion, but ‘would not vote fr £1 re‘duction. That was simply camoflvage. On a division the amendment was lost by 23 to 31, and the Bill reported with amendment, read a third time after a. brief discussion, during which ‘Mr Massey said he hoped to be able Ito make a statement regarding a "bonus to Second division men before the House rose_ The Board proposed [to be set up to inquire into wages iand the working conditions of the _.railways would be organised with as [little delay as possible, and he hoped 'to report Within three months. ; The House rose at 6.19 till 7.30 -p.m.