The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 26, 1908. RAILWAYS AND PAROCHIALISM.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 285, 26 August 1908, Page 6

The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 26, 1908. RAILWAYS AND PAROCHIALISM.

Foe those whose political horizon is not bounded by the limits of their parishes, the report of yesterday afternoon's proceedings in the House of Representatives will make depressing reading. It is long since the spirit of parochialism that animates so large a portion of Parliament's discussions had such a shameless exposition as in the debate that arose out of Me. Herries's request for a statement of the Government's railway polioy, Me, Herries followed up Mb request by ad' vocating the claims of the East Coast railway, and as if by a preconcerted arrangement member after member rushed forth to press the claims of his own district. In the furious battle of tho parishes thq interests of tho country as a whole were entirely ignored. It was Parliament at its very worst: hardly a member camc out of the debate with any qredit. To the northern members it was " political effrontery " on the part of the southerners to seize upon Mr. Herries's plea for tho East Coast railway as an opportunity to speak up for their districts. To the southerners words were inadequate to measure tho depths of northern parochialism. Even Mil. Massey, 'of whom better things might have been (lid not scruple to lay it down that " any member who did not avail himself of every opportunity of supporting tho claims of his district to any particular work that was required would bo failing in liis duty." On another occasion, and in other circumstanccs, Mr. Massey's sentiments might havo been excusable, but in their context they amounted to a support of the noxious doctrine that a membor of tho national Assembly should bo a local delegate above all things. It is this idea, that " the district" iB tho most important thing—an idea carefully nurtured by the late Mr. Seddon, who realised the value of it to a Government anxious to keep in office at any price—to which many of tho country's troubles are referable, and Mr. Massey, who advocatos reform, should havo been the last to give it even a partial support. In tho debate, of course, the opening portion of Mn. Herries's speech was utterly forgotten. It is true that the Prime Minister " doprocated the tone 'that the discussion had taken," and con-

dernned " this wretched, parochial, provincial spirit." But the Prime Minister is hardly competent to take up such a stand, since the spirit that he deprecates is tho direct roßulfc of the Public "Works policy that he has inherited from his predecessor. His onslaught on the " electioneering " speoches of members was very like Satan reproving sin. Tho public has its own opinion of tho Government's policy. Sir Joseph Ward may be quite honest in his indignant repudiation of the suggestion that the Government " frames its Public Works Estimates upon the suggestions of members in Imprest Supply speeches." The Government knows a trick worth two of that. It looks to the state of feeling in the electorates. The Public Works Estimates are framed with an eye to the elections. What the country requires, and what the Prime Minister did not give, is a general statement of railways policy. The completion of the Main Trunk Railway should be made the occasion for an ending of the haphazard, hand-to-mouth system of building railways to suit the requirements, not of the country, but of the party in power. The fact that th<? past year's working of the railways ha§ beep in most vital respects the very worst on record is by itself a reason for the laying down of a fixed policy. The country is past th§ stage of uncertainty and liability to sudden and unexpected variations of development," and a policy could be arranged now which nothing would make it necessary to alter for many years. Tho cardinal points to remember in framing a policy are the enormous increase of the railway debt, the increasing cost of con* struction, the increasing annual deficit on the working of the system, and thq absurdity of expanding tho HurunuiBluff section, which, even when revenue is fortified by loan money, fails to make ends meet by at least £180,000 a year. Clearly, tho correct policy would involve the cessation of branch extensions in the South Island, and the abandonment, until a very distant date, of the Midland Railway. It is to bo hoped that the House will again discuss this grave question before the session ends, and that thp parochial enmities will be forgotten in the urgent necessity for a clear and in? tolligcnt railway programme. The an* nual railways expenditure in this country is proportionately far greater than Great- Britain's annual naval expenditure. The need for a settled railway policy and a clear programme is at least as great, therefore, as the necessity for a fixed naval policy in Great Britain.