TRAMWAY BOARD ELECTION

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21941, 16 November 1936, Page 5

TRAMWAY BOARD ELECTION

TO THE EDITOB OF THE PRESS. Sir—Your correspondent asks a few questions which I will be only too pleased to answer. Of coure, the Labour candidates stated that a rate would be avoided if possible, but when they got control and found out the mess the previous board had got into, it was not possible to avoid the rate. The reason why the board did not levy for the full amount, recommended by the accountants was because of the large amount involved and the knowledge of the extreme difficulty many people were having in meeting their rates at that period. If the old board had only had the courage to strike a rate six years previously instead of putting off the evil hcilr. the service would have been maintained in a higher state of efficiency. and the amount required in rates would have been so small that it would not have pressed hard on anyone.

The accounts that have suffered through not striking the full amount are the fire and employees’ accident funds, as instead of retaining these funds the board has to insure with outside insurance companies, and is building up profits for them instead of for the board. In regard to the public accident fund, in the event of a serious accident there would be no recourse but to put something further on the rates to meet the position. The renewal funds were depleted to an unduly low level and the accountants pointed out that not nearly enough was being allowed for obsolescence, and that any new plant or extra renewals would necessitate a recourse to further borrowing. “X.Y.Z.” wishes to know how much the indebtedness of the board has increased since Labour took control. This is easily answered and there is nothing to hide; £9OOO was raised to complete the conversion of one-man cars, commenced by the previous board, and £20,000 was raised to buy out the Inter-City buses and install the fleet of Diesel buses on Worcester street-Dal-lington line. This was necessitated by the folly of the previous board, as I pointed out previously, of robbing the renewal funds to endeavour to avoid striking a rate. Had the renewal funds been kept intact, this borrowing would have been avoided and the huge drain on revenue account for interest and sinking fund on this loan would have been avoided. “X.Y.Z.” asks me to remember that there are more than two accountants

in Christchurch, and by a silly rejoinder such as this only shows his mental calibre. Why not remind me that there is more than one star in- the heavens. I would just like to remind “X.Y.Z.” that the two accountants who prepared the report were both reputable men and not ashamed to sign their names to it. Now that I have answered the questionnaire of my pseudo-accountant friend with the tail end of the alphabet nom-de-plume, I would ask him to do me a favour. Please tell the public hew he would have financed the big deficit left by the old board, and the prospective one for the year 1935, —Yours, etc., E. PARLANE. November 14, 1936.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS. ? Sir,—l have by your favour been 3 endeavouring to awaken my fellow i electors to an examination of Labour’s - pretensions during the present Tram- - way Board election, by recalling • what Labour said and promised at the I election of three years ago. and its r record of achievement since then. Now ■ that the Citizens’ Association candiJ dates are addressing their first public ' meeting to-morrow night (Monday), I hone you will allow me set forth a few questions with which they might j deal for the instructions of the citi- , zens. , Whether we like it or not, the strike is being made a major issue of the - election. The strike involved about . 350 tramwaymen—perhaps at the time ' the luckiest and most comfortably I circumstanced workers in the city. Is ; it fair that 350 men out of our poput lation of more than 100.000 people ? should thus be able to hold up the ; rest of the community and disorgan- ; ise its business? i The Labour Board which was t elected simply because the majority ; of electors did not trouble to vote, set i out to avenge the defeat of the strike t It made heroes of the strikers. The • union, at its very first meeting after ! Mr A. T. Donnelly had given his de- • cision, started to carp at his judgment. ! The board then began to plan how • it could evade the judgment and re--1 instate the strikers and discuss or derate the loyalists and volunteers. Will anyone tell us how many loyalists and volunteers have been dismissed or reduced in grade under the board’s policy of victimisation? Labour speaks in contradictory terms of the service. .At one time it is declared to be the best service in Australasia, or the world. In the next breath it is declared to be the worst.' Now, which is it? They cannot have it both ways. Much is said by Labour about the increase in loan liability under the Citizens’ board. But are there no assets to set against that liability, and would it not have been incurred under any board that kept the tramway service in an efficient condition? As to the utilisation of reserve funds by the late board to save the ratepayers from the imposition of a rate at a time when the slump was at its worst, was not that thoroughly sound business? These are only a few points, but I hope the Citizens’ Association candidates will deal with them. The position is being so grossly misrepresented by the Daniels of the Trades Hall that we should have some plain speaking, and I hope to hear it at Monday’s meeting.—Yours, etc., REMEMBRANCE. November 15, 1936. TO THE EDITOB OF THE P/lE-iS. Sir,—Mr Parlanc’s cheap humour falls rather flat. I wish to give him seme figures concerning the bus operators covering all the buses used by the board. .There are 32 regular bus drivers according to the traffic rosters; 26 of these are strikers and six are loyalists. According to Mr Parlane. length of service was taken into consideration. but I find that a number of the men now driving buses are junior by a few years of service to some of the men who were refused permission to qualify, and to my way of thinking efficiency has not been taken into consideration. Admittedly no monetary benefit is gained by bus drivers over motormcn, but the pcsi--1 tion as I see it is that since Labour gained control of the trams 26 strikers have been rostered as bus operators and no further loyalists have been appointed to those positions. Is it the board’s intention to deprive certain of the staff of the opportunity of becoming efficient in special work? The day apparently is not far distant when all tram services in Christchurch will be scrapped, and is it the board’s policy to deny a certain portion of the staff from qualifying as bus operators? I should also like to ask Mr Parlane if it is true that the board’s officers are instructed about to whom extra work must be given, as I have it on good authority that a certain section ex the staff’ are favoured in this respect. No. I am not a tramway employee, but have gained my information in the sarr" manner as Mr Pa v lanc’s collo?gua. Mr Hiram Hunter, obtained his regarding Mr Thcmnson’s salary. In reply to Mr Manning regarding his staff, it is well known why it is out or harmony, and it has definitely been caused by at least six of the men re-employed as a result of the board’s agreement with the former tramway men’s association. So the personal relationships of the staff are their own concern? This is not so. The scheme of being called on the mat originated with the former tramway men’s association, and they make it their bus’ness to see that it is rigidly adhered to. It is left to Mr Manning and ethers like him to see that strikes are not forgotten, even strikes which are without necessity or excuse; but we have Labour members of the present Government, also a Cabinet Minister, who openly expressed disapproval of the tramway union’s attitude. —Yours, etc., CONCESSION CARD USER. November 14, 1936.