Transport plan a sham—Labour

Press, 3 September 1982, Page 4

Transport plan a sham—Labour

PA Wellington The Government’s land transport discussion paper was called “a sham” by the Labour Party yesterday. Heading criticism of the report by Railway, interests, the Opposition’s, deputy spokesman on transport, Mr John Kirk, said that in reality, it was “a policy statement outlining proposals.” He said the Ministry of Transport had made the assumption that “the taxpayers' investment in rail must be abandoned” and said there was already excess in the trucking secton ■ ' '

The Government had “deprived Railways for years. Now they want to put the dagger in a long way further and hurt the taxpayer with ' it,” he said.. ' The general secretary of the National Union of Railwaymen, .Mr Don Goodfellow, said deregulation would “sound the knell for the future of railway branch lines in provincial areas.” The Government seemed to be . allowing its transport j policies ; “to be created by ivory tower economic theorists 4 X who,, have had no practical experience r in the transport' industry them-

selves.” The paper confirmed the traditional Ministry of Transport attitude of being antirail, he said. The Railway Officers' In•■stitute said the document showed from the first paragraph that it has been produced by a Ministry at best without full knowledge of the history of land transport? in New Zealand, and at worst, heavily biased against rail transport. The institute said the Ministry had a questionable stance on the facts or a failtire to grasp them. It said it would make comprehensive submissions on “this sus'pect document.”

The Drivers’ Federation said the report was “totally unbalanced and a threat to workers both in road transport and in rail." The federation’s president, Mr Dougal Soper, said it was based on the ideas or theorists in the Ministry “who get. all their knowledge on the industry from watching ‘BJ and the Bear’ on television." The General Manager of the Railways, Mr T. M. Hayward. said His initial reaction was that the report should go in the wastepaper basket. The report failed, he said, because it criticised the present system without offering

anything better in its place. “All we have received is just another mountain of criticism and some unrealistic solutions in which even the authors of the document themselves express little confidence," he said. The president of the. Manufacturers' Federation, Mr W. Christie, said he supported deregulation in land transport and that the federation welcomed the report. It should be judged on whether it helped the national interest rather than just helping either road or rail, he said.