THE TEST OF MERIT.

Auckland Star, Volume LV, Issue 235, 3 October 1924, Page 9

THE TEST OF MERIT.

MINISTER ON THE PROGRAMME A DISCUSSION ON THE BLIND. (By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Kcporter.) WELLINGTON, Thursday. The Minister of Railways presented the railways improvement statement to j the House this afternoon, and the report was tabled after a long discussion, jin which members were handicapped by ] the ignorance of its contents. The Hon. J. G. Coates, in moving that ; the report be printed, said it had not j been prepared in any way for the RailI way Commission coming to New Zea--1 land, which, however, would be asked !to comment upon the proposals and j advise the Government as to whether they were in the best interests of the [railway system. They might also have I other suggestions to make. The report proposed the expenditure of eight millions at the rate of a million yearly. Mr. L. __. Isitt: Give us the leading points. The Minister said none of the proposals, it was estimated, would show a return of less than 5 per cent, and some up to 17 per cent on the investments. In other words tho test of merit had Ix-en applied in nearly every case. It had been stated by tiie General Manager this year that at least thirteen millions would be required (or railway improv-cinonts, but the Government considered the limit to which it could reasonably go without increasing borrowing to any extent was £8,081,500, spread over eight years. All the j works included had been sot out in 1014 by Mr. Hiley, but had boon de- | laved by the war. I( was interesting |to note that the number of passengers carried showed an increase since 1014 of five millions, and freight increased by one million tons. There had been 200 miles of now railways added, and he anticipated that by 1032 there would be an additional 427 miles added, which would bring greater pressure upon the termini and marshalling stations. He believed if these improvements were carried out and the rolling stock, including locomotives, brought up to requirements and the overhead on the nonpayable lines reduced, the Department could pay a satisfactory rate ot interest. Orders had been given to British firms for 25 new engines, but 35 were needed. Mr. Veitoh: Why are they not crdcred in New- Zealand? Tho Minister said the local works were fully employed. Mr. Wilford said the Minister could have more effectively prevented the House from knowing the contents of the report by bringing it down in a sealed envelope. It was a convenient way to bring down a report, convenient for the Government that wished to burke discussion. Judging by what the Government had done during the last twelve years the report probably contained one of those schemes they yvore great at starting, but poor at finishing, from electoral reform downward. He could enumerate many cases whero the Government had started out as sprinters, but could not finish the mile. It was probably only another windowdressing to carry the Government on for a month or two till people forgot what the proposals were. The Local Aspect. Mr. P. J. Sullivan pointed out that under the Hiley scheme the expenditure had been £009,000 in Auckland, j and £92,233 had been spent in other j districts. He hoped the expenditure would be more equitable in future under tho new and extended proposals. He reminded the House that the people of Canterbury paid for construction both of their railway and the tunnnel, and the Government had spent very little there since the railway's were tnken over from the provinces in 1878. He urged electrification of the Lyttelton tunnel. Mr. T. Nash said that complaints were made that there was greater expenditure on railways in the North Island than ill the South Island, but it was forgotten that North Island railways returned £G 2/G per cent, against £2 3/ti per cent in the South Island. (Mr. L. Mcllvride urged the building of locomotives within the Dominion. Mr. Geo. Witty said that the single line through the Lyttelton tunnel had handicapped Canterbury railway trallic. Canterbury was tired of unfulfilled promises, which they suspected were simply camouflage. The Minister: I never made any promise. Mr. IT. F. Armstrong: Time you did. Mr. Witty: Tlie people are actually going to the North Island rather than put up with the tunnel. Mr. Armstrong said the report was a sort of surprise packet. Canterbury had a serious grievance, but matters would not. be improved by crying out about what had lieen spent in Auckland or some other part of New Zealand. He did not think too much bad been spent in Auckland, but at the same time, as a Canterbury member, he yvo-uld not be doing his duty if he did not raise his voice against the injustice in regard to railway construction indicted on Canterbury. Mr. W. D. Lysnar declared that duplications and deviations were nothing in importance to a work such as the 1 East Coast Railway, which would open up four or live million acres. Mr. Isitt likened the Minister of Railways to the director of a moving picture show, because of his having created one long thrill. (Laughter.) They have been trying to get a promise regarding the tunnel and electrification, but the Minister had referred them to the report. It had taken a long time for the moving finger to write, but it had written, and he hoped it would move more rapidly now as far as Christchurch and Lyttelton were concerned. Mr. A. Bell said he realised that good motor roads would be of more advantage in the far north than a railway. At the same time he urged completion of the line from Kaihau to Hokianga, as promised. Methods of Construction. The Minister of Railways, in reply, stated that New Zealand did not appear capable of building more than 18 engines annually, therefore it was necessary to j order 27 immediately. It was estimated ! that 157 new locomotives would be I needed till 1929. He realised that the j allocations would not satisfy everybody, but they aimed at meeting public require- , ments. It had been asked what was the j good of programmes, but he could refer i his critics to the achievements in regard to the bydro-electric and railway construction programmes.. It could be shown that by concentration satisfactory , progress had been made. Tbe programme I did not interfere with the Public Works I programme, but some of the railway improvements would be done by the Public Works Department, and it would j not greatly increase the borrowing j recmirementa.