I.—6a

126

[a. : gbaham.

49. You got an allowance of so-much per day for three xx-eeks?—Yes, and hotel expenses. 50. You and the clerk got an allowance plus hotel expenses for yourself and wives and families?— The regulation alloxvance we were paid. 51. Plus out-of-pocket expenses?— Yes, without any reduction. 52. Well, can you tell the Committee, Mr. Graham, any reason why the Department when it transfers a man should pa}- all those expenses and keep his house? —I cannot give you any reason, but I should like to ask xvhy the Department did it and have done it from time immemorial. 53. Do you think it is reasonable to expect it!—l think that vested interests are always reasonable. We have a right to expect to get them xvhen they have been ours for such a long period of time. 54. The Department has not given you the right to expect that it is going to keep your house for you? —Well, it has never kept my house —I have kept it myself. 55. I am talking about men on transfer- they have no right to expect that? —You have established a precedent, and xve have a right to expect that the precedent shall be carried out. 56. And now you are altering it?—Y'ou have altered it. 57. Well, now that it is altered and there is a, loxver maximum, why are you complaining? — In the first place I have stated that the two days for packing up is a little unreasonable. We find it so from actual experience. The Department has reduced the time to two days. The Railway Officers' Institute have discussed the question right throughout New Zealand, and they are of opinion, and I have no doubt it is founded upon their experience, that two days is rather a short time in which to pack up and start a journey on. They also consider that one week at the end of the journey is not a sufficient time as a maximum. Ido not say, as a minimum, because if a man is transferred to where there is a railway house the house is ready for him; but I am referring more particularly to places where there are no railway- houses, because the Department does not provide a house in every instance. There is a considerable number of positions in the Railway service in xvhich house accommodation is not provided for, and those officers are entirely at the mercy of the public landlord and are indebted to him for a residence. It is to those officers more particularly that xve refer in regard to the hardship of the time-alloxvance xx'hich xve consider is not sufficient. If a man has to hunt for a house it often ends in his being victimized and having to take a very ordinary house in an entirely unsuitable locality that perhaps no one would care to live in oxving to his being jammed for room, and a further shift has to take place afterwards. 58. But does not the man in private employment have to contend xvith the same difficulties xvith respect to a house? —Yes, but the man in private employment is shifting to suit himself. 59. Then your complaint is that the Railway man is not shifting to please himself? —No. He may not care to go, and the Department may say, " You have got to go." These hardships I am referring to are extreme cases.

Friday, 6th October, 1911. Andrew Graham, examination continued. (No. 28.) 1. Mr. McVilly.] We were discussing the question of the time alloxxed for transfer by the Department. One of the complaints of the institute is that txvo days at the commencement of the journey and a xveek after arrival at destination is insufficient. Now, is it not the general rule that officers xvho are transferred have notice some considerable time ahead of their transfer?—lt is the practice of the Department, I believe, to notify where it can be done that there is a probable change on. 2. They are given notice that it is proposed to transfer them, and what the change is so far as they are concerned. For instance, a man is told that it is proposed to transfer him from Dunedin to Timaru? —It has not always been the case, but in some instances it has been done. Generally they endeavour to give him notice. 3. Seeing that that is the case, what is to prevent a man making his arrangements ahead — that is, getting his arrangements well forward? —The inconvenience to his wife, his family, and himself. A man cannot upset his whole household arrangements for a whole week in order to be prepared to go. 4. But seeing that a man has the notice, xvhat is there to prevent him making such arrangements that he can pack and get out in txvo days?— Well, I pointed out to you that the Department does not allow him anything for his expenses if he goes out of the house, and if he has to live in the house he must live there at serious inconvenience to himself and family if he starts disarranging his household furniture. 5. If a man has to shift on Monday, what is to prevent him having the packers there the first thing on Monday morning? —Well, the Sunday night intervenes there and inconveniences him. 6. Could he not make his arrangements on Saturday for the packers to go in the first thing on Monday morning? —Yes, it is possible. 7. If he does that, how long xvould it take —take the average run?—l can only speak from personal experience. It takes me regularly four days to do everything at the very least. 8. And during that four days your contention is that the Department should pay expenses?— Yes. 9. And relieve the man of any expense that he may have to incur in connection xvith the house? —Yes, I say that a man has to go out of the house to let the packing go on, because no man