“NO MYSTERY”

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 56, Issue 155, 14 April 1936, Page 3

“NO MYSTERY”

NAPIER-GISBORNE RAILWAY. EXPLANATION BY MR FORBES. (Special to the “Guardian”). WELLINGTON, April 13. Great interest was aroused when, a few months after the general election, it was discovered that prior to the campaign the Railway Board had given an undertaking to the former Government to operate the Napier-Gisborne railway if construction was completed. The report was not made fully public until the Minister of Public Works (the lion. R. Semple) produced it during the recent debate on the measure which will substitute Ministerial for Board control of the railways. Then it was found that the favourable recommendation was very fully qualified. Why was this important document kept secret? The Leader of the Opposition (the lit. Hon. G. W. Forbes) lias explained the reasons, and lias given the history of its origin. The former Government, he said, appointed a committee of departmental heads to take a survey of the useful works of major character which could be put in hand for the relief of unemployment, developmental projects being specially in mind.

“Amongst other things, the question of completing the Napier-Gisborne line came up,” continued Mr Forbes,'“and then the offer from the Railway Board which the Hon. R. Semple read to the House was submitted to this committee as a basis for consideration.

A copy was afterwards sent to me as Minister of Railways, and I discussed the matter with the deputy-chairman of the Board (Sir James Gunson) and the general manager (Mr G. H. Mackley) to see if we could come to some arrangement, for the recommendation was not intended to be a final one. Then it was explained to me that the Board could only undertake to operate the line if it was free of capital cost, and they were guaranteed all tho traffic.

“This will require legislation in regard to the transport services on tho road I replied,” said Mr Forbes. “It will require an agreement with the people of the district that they are willing to relinquish a system of transport which has served them for years in the absence of a railway. 1 am not in favour of pushing these people off the road, because they established their services when there was no railnay, and the Government would have to be satisfied that a groat majority of cite people favoured this step. Compensation would need to be paid, and I want to know the cost.”

“This was just before the election,” continued Mr Forbes. “Cabinet was on the eve of breaking up for the campaign, and wo could not seriously consider the big questions involved—and they were very contentious. “Another matter I wanted to probe was how tho Board reconciled its original report ■ that the railway would not pay operating expenses, with its new undertaking to work the line on certain conditions. No financial details of that character were included in its later report. So we refrained irom doing anything at that stage, and if we had announced the Board’s recommendation it would have been claimed, and rightly so, that it was for tho purpose of assisting our candidates at tho election.

“The lines were stopped during the depression, and I have always contended that when the country got into better times, wo should consider tho developmental aspect of railways and endeavour to provide services in those districts which had been waiting so long. We did the right thing under the circumstances, and,” emphatically concluded Mr Forbes, “there was no mystery.”