I—6a.

94

[b. w. mcvilly.

and sometimes in the xvinter, instead of one section of staff getting all the summer and the others all the winter, Labour Day was added to the annual holidays, so that in thirteen years members get thirteen days, but they only get twelve years' leave. The effect of the operation of the leave rota is to put the leave back one month each year, so that in thirteen years members lose one year's leave, but they get one extra day each year to compensate for it. In the aggregate the time the men get off is about the same as if they had the leave annually. This arrangement was made at the request of the staff and to suit the private arrangements of the staff, and not to suit the Department's requirements. That is all I xvish to say in regard to those clauses. 6. Mr. Young.] Mr. McVilly, did I understand you to say that Dominion Day was granted as an extra holiday as a set-off? —No, I never mentioned Dominion Day—l said Labour Day. 7. Is a doctor's certificate really of very much value considering that application for leave really depends on the honour of the man applying? —1 have already stated that a doctor's certificate is a safeguard. Doctors, like all the rest of mankind, disagree, and the value of a doctor's certificate depends to a large extent on the status and conscientiousness of the doctor. 8. But does it not depend on what the man tells the doctor ?—Oh, no, not always. 9. A man might explain to the doctor that he had a pain somewhere, and the doctor could not say he had not? —I know perfectly well from my oxxn knoxvledge of what transpired in an appeal case which xvas rather prominent, that epilepsy cannot be diagnosed. The value of a doctor's certificate to the Department is that it does tend to make men more careful in respect to malingering. I am not saying and I have not suggested that a doctor's certificate is absolutely reliable in every case —in fact, I think I made the position quite clear when I stated that there were certain reasons why the Department did not always insist in getting doctors' certificates. 10. Yes, that is what I understood; but, really, more depends on the honour of the man applying that on the certificate? —In reply, I should like to say this : that Mr. Young knows as well as I do of the considerable number of cases in his oxvn branch of the Department in xvhich instructions are given to the District Officer to satisfy himself, and where in those cases the District Officer tells us he is satisfied, Mr. Young knoxvs perfectly well xve accept that instead of insisting on a certificate. 11. You mean, so far as the officers are concerned?-—Officers, and men of the Second Division too. 12. Do you always demand a certificate from men of the Second Division in the case of accident? —We have instructed District Officers over and over again to satisfy themselves of the bona fides of the statements and condition of certain men both in the First and Second Divisions. I could produce in connection with your particular branch in Christchurch any number of cases if 1 had time to look up the records. 13. That is not the question. My question xvas, does it not really depend on the honour of the man applying for leave to a great extent?—No, lam not prepared to admit that. A doctor's certificate simply comes down to this, that it is a reasonable safeguard. 14. I understood you to say that in 1906 the Department shook things up and that an improvement took place with regard to malingering and the arrears of leave ? —Yes. 15. And yet according to your statement that you read out, on Friday I think, in 1909 the cost of sick-leave xvas £900 greater than in the previous year?— And in the intermediate year there xvas a drop, and then it went up again. There was a temporary drop when xve were shaking things up, and then there was an upxvard tendency. 16. Then you compared August, 1911, xvith the same month of the previous year?— Yes. I not only compared August but the five months of the financial year, and I pointed out that there xvas a drop of £640, or nearly 50 per cent., in the cost of sick-leave. 17. Do you not think that the present system is more likely to cause malingering from the fact that a man finds that his sick-leave is absorbing his annual leave, and be may be inclined to remain off for a further period?—l know absolutely it does not tend to malingering, and that position is proved by the fact that all over the country the leave is noxv ahead, xvhereas when the regulation was gazetted, on the 19th May, 1910, notwithstanding the action the Department was taking in connection with the nutter, the leave xvas going behind all the time. When the Department said originally that it would not make any deduction up to four xveeks there was a steady-up for a little time, and then a reversal; but after the regulation came out there was a complete change, and at the present time, as I have said, the leave is not only up to date but ahead of time, and xve have had several applications from the district you represent asking for the leave to be put off because it is so well ahead. In one or txvo special instances xve agreed; others were declined. 18. Did I understand you to say that previous to the regulation coming out in May, 1910, warnings had been given ?—Constant xvarnings xvere given to the District Officers. 19. Can you produce a copy of the circular or instructions? —The Head Office was taking the matter up almost daily, certainly weekly, and you know as a man in a District Office that xve were forced into the position of having to obtain returns showing exactly the position of leave in every district. Those returns xvere got at considerable difficulty, and they imposed considerable work on the Head Office. They xvere obtained simply for the purpose of seeing xvhat the actual position was from time to time, and keeping a close check on the sick-leave. We got those returns regularly, and each time we got them the Head Office wrote strongly to the District Officers pointing out what the position was, and the necessity for improving it. 20. You mentioned some officers who xx'ere malingering in Wellington some time since. Were their names known to the Department? —I do not know that I mentioned any particular officers. I said that what brought the matter particularly under the notice of the Head Office was the fact that five officers from one section xvere xvalking about the streets of Wellington ostensibly on sickleave, and there was just as much xvrong xvith them as there was with me. I knexv that five officers were off at this particular time from this particular section, and those men I was told were in Wellington. 21. You do not know their names? —No, not personally.