page 6

General Manager's message

For the enlightenment of the railway staff and the general public alike, and in order that the true value of the propaganda that is being carried on through the Press and other channels in connection with the recent resignation of the elected representative of Division One, Mr. J. S. Roscoe, from the Railways Appeal Board may be fairly judged, I reproduce, on page 8, copies that have come into my hands of letters sent by Mr. Roscoe to the Executive Committee and all Branch Secretaries of the Railway Officers Institute. As an example of the methods employed—methods that to all fair-minded people surely carry their own condemnation—I would draw pointed attention to Mr. Roscoe's postscript to his letter of the 25th March—a postscript that was obviously not included in the copy of the letter he sent to the Executive Committee.

The reasons given in Mr. Roscoe's letter of the 31st March for his resignation from the Appeal Board will not stand the test of intelligent examination.

He states: “My recent experience of appeal cases convinces me that no appellants have a chance of winning an appeal before the new Board is appointed,” but apparently he overlooked the fact that in the cases he has adjudicated upon he has supported 88 per cent. of the decisions of the Board. Mr. Roscoe also overlooks the very serious reflection his statement casts on the integrity of the present members of the Appeal Board, particularly the Chairman, who is a Magistrate. In this connection it should be noted that the Board regulates its own procedure, and is required to hear and determine appeals according to equity and good conscience on the evidence adduced before it. Mr. Roscoe's statement is also extraordinary in view of his published declaration: “My personal relations with my colleagues on the Appeal Board are the happiest possible.”

Mr. Roscoe's further statement that: “Senior Officers of the Department are coached in the evidence they are to give,” considered in the light of his general statement, leaves only one implication—that Senior Officers are not true to the oath they take that they will speak “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” This is again a serious reflection on the integrity of our Senior Officers and is, I know, absolutely without foundation. I would expect all witnesses either for the Department or the appellant to be completely impartial, and to speak the truth in accordance with their solemn oath. Any officer who failed to so act would not only embarrass the Department, but he would not be a proper person to have in a position of control. From my long association with, and knowledge of, proceedings of the Appeal Board I can say definitely that every endeavour is made to present the case for the Department with the utmost fairness, and I am satisfied that anything to the contrary exists only in Mr. Roscoe's imagination.

According to Mr. Roscoe's estimate, neither the Chairman of the Appeal Board nor the Departmental representative is to be trusted, and he also implies that the Senior Officers of the Department are of doubtful integrity.

page break

Mr. Roscoe speaks of the loss of “the right of appeal against non-recommendation.” As he should well know, there has been no right of appeal against non-recommendation at any time since he accepted appointment to the Appeal Board; and, of course, the position in this respect is still the same, and is in accordance with the legislation which has been in existence for many years.

Mr. Roscoe alleges that accelerated promotion in special positions gives “all the plums of the Service to favoured few.” I say definitely that there is no favouritism in the Service, all appointments being made strictly in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Government Railways Act.

One would have expected that in charging the Department with maladministration, Mr. Roscoe would have quoted some instances had there been any; but not once, either in his communications with the Press or in his propaganda amongst officers and members of the Officers’ Institute, is a single instance of maladministration quoted.

Another error of Mr. Roscoe's is in stating that “the right of appeal in relation to dismissal for alleged drunkenness and alleged peculation is denied by the Department.” In reply to this I say there are no dismissals in the Department for either “alleged drunkenness” or “alleged peculation.” The real position is that when drunkenness or peculation are admitted or proved and dismissal follows, then—in accordance with the terms of the Act—“in no case shall any person who has been dismissed for peculation or drunkenness be again appointed on the permanent staff of the Department.”

The course I am pursuing in this Message is somewhat unusual, but the circumstances necessitating it are exceptional, and I am constrained to deal with the matter also for another reason. I find that besides the misleading propaganda distributed by Mr. Roscoe through the channels mentioned, he has received the support of the official organ of the Communist Party of New Zealand, the “Workers’ Weekly.” which, in an article on the 24th March, applauds him and his action, and follows up these laudatory comments with remarks very similar to those contained in the propaganda issued by Mr. Roscoe himself to the Branch Secretaries of the Railway Officers’ Institute.

These latest developments convince me that Mr. Roscoe's real objective is not concerned with the best interests either of the majority of railway officers or of the public. It is therefore my obvious public duty to make known what is going on, in order that influences which might do harm to an important Department of State may be counteracted.

General Manager.