I.—6a.

148

[». W. MOVILLY

In the first place, the responsibility of the proper arrangements for their safety is on the head of the executive officers. There are also grave responsibilities upon the head of the men themselves, who might, in the event of an accident happening where death resulted, be charged with manslaughter; but the final responsibility is on the Ministerial head of the Department, and therefore' it is impossible, no matter what pressure is brought to bear upon the Minister who is carrying on the railways of the country, to hand over such a responsibility to any Board. When I placed these views before those making the request they readily agreed that there was reason on the side of the Government for the position they took up.' . That, I may say, sir, is only a reflex of the statements that were made from time to time by the late Sir Alfred J. Cadman when Minister of Railways; he absolutely refused on more than one occasion to hand over the control of the service to an irresponsible Appeal Board —in other words, he would not waive the power of veto. Sir Joseph Ward declined to waive the power of veto, the Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones took up the same attitude, and the Hon. Mr. Millar has done the same. Now, sir, we have heard of McKeuzie's case. Briefly, the position was this : he was a member of the Second Division, and was promoted to the First Division. He should have got a salary when promoted of .£l5O a year, but lie was appointed to a station and given £170 a year. He was placed on the D.-3 list below all the clerks who had attained the full pay of a clerk before he was transferred. He was dissatisfied with that position, and lie appealed. 1 took the case before the Appeal Board, and I put in a statement showing that to give Mr. McKenzie what he was asking would result in his superseding either 40G or 426 members of the First Division. I made that position quite clear to the Board. The regulation was quoted on the other side, and I was asked what was the literal interpretation of the regulation. I stated distinctly to the Board what the literal interpretation was, and that the Department was not defending the case on the literal interpretation of the regulation at all. 1 put it to the Board that in that case we were very much in the same position as a corporation with a by-law providing for an unreasonable thing to be done contrary to the intentions of an Act and therefore bad at law. Alter mature consideration the Board unanimously decided that, in view of the fact that to give effect to Mr. McKenzie's request would give him an unfair advantage over a large number of men, they would make no recommendation, but left the matter in the hands of the Minister. The Minister, after obtaining a full explanation of the case and its effect, thereupon directed that no alteration be made in the position, and Mr. McKenzie was told he could make no alteration. That, I may say, was done by the late Hon. Mr. Pitt, who was Attorney-General and also a lawyer. He saw the unreasonableness of the position. Mr. McKenzie got £20 more money by being appointed a Stationmaster than he would have got had he been appointed a clerk, and lie was [nit in the position which we have for J ears past put every man from the Second Division who is placed in the First Division—that is, he goes below all members who have attained to the full rank of clerk and is sandwiched in between the clerks and cadets. He was dissatisfied, there was .i lot of correspondence, and he was told over and over again what the position was. The Hon. Mr. Pitt, after hearing a full explanation of the case, declined to make any alteration, so did the Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones, and there the matter rested. With regard to Harrington's case, the Department recognized it was very unfortunate for the man, but it is not the only unfortunate case; there was an equally unfortunate case in Napier. That man was within a few months of superannuation, and he committed a serious breach of the regulations. When in charge of about £30,000 worth of property he kept up Christmas or New Year, and got into trouble. He was dismissed, and went to the Appeal Board. That man could not be reinstated. In Harrington's ease it was admitted that he took liqu >r and was under the influence of liquor : he admitted that. The Act says (section 64), " The Minister, in respect of appeals to him, and the Appeal Board in respect of appeals to it, shall have full power to confirm, modify, or disallow tliu decision appealed against, in such manner in all respects as is deemed just : Provided that—(«) Every decision of the Appeal Board shall be submitted to the Minister, and no such decision shall take effect unless and until he signifies his approval thereof; (b) in no case shall any person who has been dismissed for peculation or drunkenness be again appointed on the permanent staff of the Department. , ' Now, sir, in both those cases, those two unfortunate men I am speaking about were dismissed for drunkenness. There is the Act; the Appeal Board cannot override that. I submit if the Department establishes clearly to the Uoard the fact that a man was dismissed for drunkenness, and in those cases it was established beyond doubt, then there is no alternative : the man is out, and you cannot re-employ him under that clause. 2. That is a Second Division case? —No, Harrington's case was exactly the same, and about the same time. I want to make it clear that, personally, the General Manager always feels sorry for these men, and so do other departmental officers. It is not a pleasure to the Department to have to dispense with men right on the eve of their retirement —practically to put them out and deprive them of their superannuation benefits at the close of their lives; but what are you to do? Public safety is involved. In Harrington's case, it is true, the public safety was not involved, but the man held a position in which lack of control would certainly involve the Department in a very large expense, and would interfere materially with the discipline, the operation of the place, and the work he was engaged in. Harrington, I may say, for the information of the Committee, was a man who for very many, years had not lieen recommended for promotion, and one of the reasons why he was not recommended for promotion was that he was not considered reliable in the respect indicated, but the matter had never been brought under the notice of the Department by a specific report, 'the Stationmaster at Lyttelton evidently had his suspicions, because finally he notified two men in the shed, "If you don't report Harrington the next time he is under the influence of liquor, then I will deal with you." That is how the matter came out finally. So far as McKenzie is concerned, I submit his case received the fullest consideration. The Board left the matter entirely in the hands of the Minister. The position and attitude that the Department took up was solely in the interests of the 4-06 men that the Department considered would have been