GOODS TRANSPORT

Auckland Star, Volume LXXVI, Issue 88, 14 April 1945, Page 6

GOODS TRANSPORT

RIVAL N.Z. SERVICES

PROTECTION ACT URGE,D

P.A. WELLINGTON, this day. Statutory provision in the form of a coastwise shipping protection Act on the lines of English legislation, which had been specially designed to meet similar difficulties, was sug-gested-by Mr. H. M. Rogerson, on behalf of coastal shipping interests generally, as an integral part of national transport policy, when addressing the Rail and Shipping Committee yesterday. Shipping companies, he said, realised the importance of nationalisation, and, as soon as the industry was freed of control under the Emergency Regulations, were prepared to maintain the nationalisation of coastal shipping services to ensure maximum efficiency. The position of some sections of coastal shipping was almost desperate and some remedy was urgently required, said Mr. Rogerson. ,■ Meanwhile, tremendous and increasing losses were facing the Railway Department. Tested by 12 years of practical application, the Imperial Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, with amendments to suit New Zealand conditions, should be enacted in this country. There should be constituted, under such legislative authority, a tribunal of three members to investigate, review and decide freight rates. One member should be appointed by the Minister of Railways, one by the coastal shipping Interests, and the third (who should have legal experience and be chairman of the tribunal) should be appointed by the Minister of Marine after consulting with the Minister of Railways. Mr. I. Thomas, on behalf of the Railway Department, said that without the operation of special rates its position would not have been as good as it was. Great play had been made concerning its financial position, but what private enterprise was saddled with such heavy liabilities for interest payments? Railway losses were chiefly due to the fact that there was not enough traffic. Special rates were economic in the sense that they increased the net railway revenue. Their abolition meant that the cost of transport would go up, and the user, who was the taxpayer, would pay more. . The committee will next week start reviewing the evidence and the compilation of its report to the Minister.