COMMENT FROM THE CAPITAL INTEGRATION OF TRANSPORT AN ALTERNATIVE TO CHAOS

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33664, 14 October 1974, Page 16

COMMENT FROM THE CAPITAL INTEGRATION OF TRANSPORT AN ALTERNATIVE TO CHAOS

(By

CEDRIC MENTIPLAY)

WELLIXC.TOX. October I:’,. The removal or rationalisation of competition between the railways, coastal shipping, road transport and air freight links is the aim of a special Cabinet sub-committee which will present an interim report * Cabinet shortly. “Most of us are in agreement that if anything is in disarray in our administration it is transport.” said the Prime Minister (Mr Rowling i recently. ‘’Some integration is needed, particularly in State transport, and this cannot be delayed.”

Mr Rowling’s references applied mainly to the future of the passenger-cargo service between Wellington and Lyttelton, and also to the existence of a coastal service to South Island ports. During discussions on the Estimates last Tuesday the Minister of Transport (Sir Basil Arthur) disclosed that in its first year of operations the new roll-on freighter Coastal Trader would show a loss of $1,800,000. This is only one aspect of the transport confusion. Much of this seems to result from the efforts of different Ministers to operate competing forms of transport without an adequate overall control. Now the Government is coming very close to admitting that the so-called “monolithic” transport structure set up by the National Government was right.

Under the National Government system, close cooperation amounting almost to integration was achieved by making the Minister of Transport (then Mr J. B. Gordon) responsible for all forms of transport, and by locating the various head offices as near as possible together. Close unified control was achieved by the use of an expanded Transport Advisory Council, which met frequently to correlate the different systems and to exchange ideas. There was even a certain “togetherness” because Mr Gordon, as Minister of Civil Aviation, had control of communications aircraft. This meant that transport officials could be moved quickly to trouble spots. Sweeping changes In Opposition, Labour members were critical of “the Gordon Monolith”. The Labour manifesto promised sweeping changes, and these occurred soon after Labour became the Government. The dismemberment of. the “monolith” was complete. Civil Aviation went to the Minister of Justice (Dr Finlay), and Railways to Mr McGuigan (who also had Civil Defence and Electricity). Sir Basil Arthur, who had been chairman of Labour’s transport committee, became Minister of Transport, and was given special powers over road and sea transport, plus a coordinating authority.

Legislation restructuring the Transport Advisory Council was passed on July 20, 1973, but the new members were not appointed until the end of the year. It was not until January 23 this year that the council had its first meeting. Its previous working membership had been expanded to include the Ministers, delegates from all transport systems, representatives of primary and secondary industry, employer and employee organisations, and even the Federation of Labour. Expansion of the Transport Advisory Council may have destroyed its usefulness in present situations. In the mid-term report “Labour Achieves”, issued last May, nothing much is mentioned of the council’s deliberations except that it has concentrated on the transport pol-

I icy study supplied by Wilbur Smith and Associates. Whatever study the Transport Advisory Council has 1 made, it has not related to the extraordinary position i which continues in the! South Island. As a keen,l positive Minister of Rail-■ ways, McGuigan improved I the efficiency of the system, j He made the most of the) Cook Strait vehicular ferries, and produced rail freight) concessions for an expanded! range of South Island prod-i ucts.

Railways rates were fixed! basically by the Cabinet at I the November, 1971, levels.! In the present situation I these would give the rail-! ways an enormous advan-' tage over other forms ofi transport. Added to this are the new unit rate systems, which would almost force South Island manufacturers and producers to use the rail system. When the Union Company withdrew its roll-on coaster! from the South Island trade,! the reason it gave was that! freight w?.s simply not offering. The company promised; that the ship would return) when the freight was there) but replacement of that) freighter became a strong: point of Government policy. I It was found, however,) that when the Coastal Tra-t Ider was bought and placed on the run, the cargo was not there. Railways rates were temptingly low, and no coastal service could compete. When the Coastal Trader was running at a loss, freight carried by rail was being held up for various reasons. The assumption is that there is enough freight for both

rail and coastal shipping if rates, ships and rolling-stock are co-ordinated. As usual, the problem is more apparent than the ) solution. Less than two ■years ago we had a unified Ministry of Transport, ) under one Minister, with a | closely-linked group of peri manent heads. Seventeen ■ months ago this was dis ; membered in favour of a j three-Minister system. Today I the talk is of integration again. But the study is being ‘carried out, not by the expanded Transport Advisory Council, but by a Cabinet | sub-committee, in the meantime, in the latest Cabinet reshuffle, Mr McGuigan has i been removed from Railways and given the Health portfolio; and the newest and least influential Cabinet member (Mr Bailey) is now Minister of Railways. ) In February, 1973, Sir B?.;il Arthur told me: “Our view is different from the ; National Government view. IWe think that the best way iis to divide the responsibility — to take it away from one Minister, who, ) under the previous Administration must have had a difficult time on occasions in dealing with conflicting interests.” “We are very conscious that coa>stal shipping has been run down to a dangerous level,” he said. “As far as some parts are concerned it is non-existent. I believe this is completely wrong. . .” Perhaps the integration that was hastily discarded then is required now after nearly two yeans of competitive disharmony.