I.—6a.

82

H. W. MCVILLY.

Those are the places that are advertised in the Railxvay Guide. As I say, 1 have no personal knowledge of those houses, but I should suppose from the prices that are paid for our advertisements that they are all right to stay at. " Kenilworth " I know is a good place, also one or two others, but the rest I cannot speak for. I think that list shows in a general way that two guineas a xveek is reasonably sufficient to meet the living-expenses of a relieving officer away from his headquarters. Then, sir, xve xvere led to believe b) 7 inference that the positions were not very much sought after because the allowances were not sufficient. Well, that is not the experience of the Department. Our experience is that when the position of relieving officer is vacant it is very much sought after, and when members of the service who apply for the position are told that it has been already filled they feel hurt. We then have a good deal of trouble and a good deal of correspondence to satisfy them on the point. Recently a vacancy occurred in a district down south owing to the death of the holder of the office. Noxv, in that particular case, almost before the Department knew that the holder of- the position had passed away, it had applications in for the vacancy. One applicant, a married man in the North Island, was so eager to get the position that he voluntarily offered to pay the whole of his transfer expenses if we would appoint him. Another man in the South Island also wanted it; so I submit that shows that the position of relieving officer is one that is sought after, and it reasonably follows, in view of the fact thai Railxvay officers are looking out to get as much remuneration as they can, and as much as they can in the way of allowances, that the position xvould not be sought after if the men did not recognize that the conditions of work were, at all events, reasonably satisfactory, and the position gave them some advantages and some benefits. There is no doubt that some recognize that the position, as Mr. McPherson put it, is one in xvhich they can get a very wide experience, but the thing that they look after most is the fad thai the allowances appertaining thereto are sufficient to cover their living, and, generally speaking, they are able, in addition to getting the training, to save more money. That, in a nutshell, is the position so far as the Department is concerned. While on this subject I should just like to point out to the Committee what the relieving officers' expenses are in the Australian States. Commonwealth: Under one x\-eek, 6s. a day; over a week in one place, £1 10s. Victoria: Officers up to £150, 3s. 6d. a day; over £150, 4s. a day. South Australia, Northern Division, beyond Hawker, ss. a day other stations, 4s. a day. Western Australia: Up to £160, 55.; £160 to £200, 7s. 6d. daily; after one xveek, 65.; £200 to £300, 10s; after one week, 7s. 6d.; after four weeks at any one place, maximum £1 15s. a xveek, minimum £1 ss. Queensland: 7s. 6d. a day, maximum £2 per x\ - eek; if more than one week at one place, £1 15s. a week. 2. Mr. Ross.] Have you a list of the tariff at the various hotels in the Commonxvealth ?—No, I have not, but I know from experience what it is. We paid from 15s. a day, the highest, and the lowest, I think, was lis. 6d. 3. Do you think the officers over there pay those amounts at the various hotels? —No, I am sure they do not. 4. Ihen your experience is no value? —My experience goes to show there is the same disparity in the tariffs of the hotels over there as there is here, and you can get board there at a comfortable commercial house just as reasonably as you can here. I was speaking of the first-class hotel —the class of hotel that the railway relieving officer would not stay at. He xvould not stay at the Hotel Australia in Sydney. 5. Mr. Ramsay.] I think, Mr. McVilly, that either you or the Minister referred yesterday to a new scale provided for Civil servants with the exception of Railway officers. Have you got a copy of that scale?—l made no reference to a new Civil Service scale, and I have not got a copy of it. 6. Did you hear the Minister make any reference to it?— The Minister made some reference to something, but I do not know what he xvas referring to. 7. Do you know whether there is any alteration in the relieving-expenses paid to Postal officers? —I knoxv that some alterations xx - ere made a short time ago, and I understood from what the Minister stated yesterday that he xvas looking for some regulation that he xvas under the impression had been gazetted, but I have not seen it. 8. Assuming, then, thatthere is no alteration, can you give any reason why relieving officers in the Railxvay service should receive less for travelling-allowances than officers in the Post and Telegraph Department?—l am not prepared to discuss why the Post and Telegraph Department pay their officers at a high rate for travelling-alloxvances, but, in my opinion, the amount paid by the Railway Department is sufficient for the purpose for xvhich the allowance is granted. 9. That is, then, you can give no reason xvhy there should be a difference between the amount paid to the Postal officer and the amount paid to the Railway officer?—l am not in charge of the Postal Department. 10. You decline to give any reason? —I am not going to discuss the Postal Department. 11. Your point is that the travelling-allowance paid under the regulations is sufficient to compensate relieving officers, and that the fact that Railway officers are anxious to obtain the position proves that. Do you not think it is on account of the experience they acquire more than anything else that they take the positions up?—No, I know it is not. I know they are after the dollars. I know in one or two cases men have taken up the position in order to gain experience ; but, generally speaking, the applicants growl when they are told that they cannot get the position, and they state that they recognize the relieving-alloxvances are worth so-much per day. 12. Is it not a fact that, generally speaking, when a man is appointed relieving officer it is promotion for him? —No, it is not. 13. Is it ever the case? —It may be. There have been some cases. 14. There have been cases where a man has been appointed relieving officer and it has been promotion for him?—-Yes, certainly. 15. Then would not that account more for the men's desire to have the position of relieving officer than the fact that they might earn a few dollars?— No.