D. RAMSAY.

I — 6a.

a distinct breach of faith xvould be committed by the Department with those officers who joined the service either prior to or under the Act." We do not propose to call evidence in reference to this clause, and I simply wish to state the position from the officers' point of view. This paragraph deals with the question as to whether or not the Department should have the power of fixing the salary of any officer within tiie maximum and minimum limits of the class or grade in which such officer is placed. The Government Railways Act, 1908, provides that the rates of pay, and of increment thereof, shall be mentioned in the Third Schedule of that Act, and paragraph (b), subsection (:>) of section 49 reads, " With respect to every member, the right to receive any increase of pay in any year shall in each case depend upon the efficiency and good conduct of the member to xvhose pay such increase is attached in the Third Schedule hereto, and no such increase shall be payable unless the permanent head of the Department certifies in xvriting that such member is entitled thereto." Section 51 provides, "It shall be the duty of the permanent head of the Department to annually certify respecting each member to whose pay an increase is attached, whether lie is or is not entitled thereto; and he shall also furnish, without comment thereon, a copy of all entries in the conduct-book relating to such member.'' Noxv, sir, the position at present is that an officer's increase in pay in any year depends upon his efficiency and good conduct, and on the certificate of the head of the Department. If, therefore, tin officer has proved himself to be efficient in his xvork and is of good conduct, he leoeives the usual increase, but otherxvise he does not, so that the Department is properly safeguarded. The Railxvay Department, however, proposes to have tiie Act amended by inserting the following clause : " The Governor in Council may from time to time, on the recommendation of the Minister, fix the amount of salary to be paid to an officer at any sum within the maximum and minimum limits of the class or grade in xvhich such officer is placed, and such amount shall be the salary payable to that officer, or in respect of the office which he holds, without annual increment." The effect of this clause xvould be to invest the Department xvith the poxver of practically overriding the classification in the Third Schedule to the Act. The Department could in effect say to an officer, " You have reached the highest position in the Department that it is intended you should, and you cannot expect any further increases." Moreover the officer would have no right to appeal from the determination of the Department. The officers strongly object to such a clause, and they submit that the Department has under the provisions which 1 have just quoted ample power to withhold increments from those officers whose work or conduct is unsatisfactory. All that the petitioner asks is that he may be heard before the clause quoted or any other provision affecting the officers passes into laxv. Paragraph (g) of the prayer of the petition states, " That the clause of the Bill set forth in paragraph 18 of this petition may not pass into law, and that the petitioner may be heard,' by himself, his counsel, agents, and witnesses, against the said clause, and such other clauses and provisions thereof as affect the interest of officers, and in support of such amendments and provisions as may be necessary for their protection." The suggestion 1 xvould make is that if at any time the Government intends introducing any legislation affecting the officers, the Government should take them into their confidence. Surely no harm could be done by sending a copy of the proposed measure to the Officers' Institute. The institute xvould then have an opportunity of considering it, and if necessary could send representatives to confer with the Government. That is all xve ask. 2. Mr. McVilly.] Will you tell me the grounds on xvhich the officers object to this clause? —I have already stated the grounds. What they say is that there is ample provision in the Act to protect the Department. If a man's conduct is satisfactory, then he receives his increase; if it is not, then he does not receive the increase. 3. Well, supposing this clause xvere put in the Act, where is the clause which says that the member shall have no appeal?— There is no clause which says that a member xvould have no right of appealing, but my point is that if you have an express provision giving the Department power to fix the salary xvithin the maximum and minimum limits, then there can be no appeal. 4. Are you prepared to put your opinion against the opinion of the Croxvn Law Officers? — Yes, certainly. 5. Then this clause according to your view is another attempt on behalf of the Department to filch something from the officers of the Department? —No, I do not say that, but what I do sayis that there are xvide enough provisions contained in the Act to protect the Department xvithout the insertion of this clause. 6. Do you think the Department would suggest a clause of this kind being put into the Act unless it was shown by those experienced to be necessary?—l do not know xvhat the Department thinks, but I know that it was proposed to put this clause into the Bill last session, but objection was made and it was withdrawn. I do not know what the opinion of the Department is on the matter, but I know this, that the officers object to the clause and that they intend going on objecting to it. 7. You ask that the Department should take the officers into its confidence in dealing xvith matters of this kind? —What I say is this: that if you propose to pass any legislation you should tell the officers xvhat legislation you intend to pass; that if you are going to bring doxvn a Bill, you should send them a copy to consider so that they can come up here and discuss it xvith you. In other xvords, what I mean is this : that no Parliament in the world would thrust on to the public a measure of which the majority do not approve. Therefore, why should you pass provisions affecting a limited section of the public such as the officers? when the majority do not approve of them? 8. Well, coming down to bed-rock, you are suggesting that when the Department finds it necessary in connection xvith administration, as a result of experience, to do something, that it should not tlo that something even in the interests of the public?—No, I do not say that at all. What I say is this : that where you propose to bring down any measure, you should consult with the Officers' Institute, and they could send representatives up to Wellington to confer with you. If you could come to some arrangement, well and good, but if you could hot and the Government

139