The Dominion. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1912. PARLIAMENT AND THE RAILWAYS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1585, 31 October 1912, Page 6

The Dominion. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1912. PARLIAMENT AND THE RAILWAYS.

The House of Representatives did not do itself much credit either yesterday or on Tuesday when discussing railways policy. The majority of the members on the Opposition side apparently were quite unconcerned about the real issues involved : generally they preferred to treat the Bill as a now deal in a game of political euchre, and to use it, at any cost to their reputations for com-mon-sense, as an opportunity to score a political point if possible- This was the motive of the amendment which they put Me. Isitt up to move—an amendment which, ii carried, would have provented tho granting of any increases in salaries —and it was the motive too of Mr. Laurenson's loud shoutings of "damnable" (a, term that is just now very popular with some of the amusing Christchurch Radicals). The only member on either side who approached the question in the right spirit was Me A. M. Myees, who said some things which we had hoped we might have heard from the Minister. He at least showed that he grasped, and was ready to stand up for, the truth which some other members are apparently unable to grasp, and which other members fully realise but are not courageous and candid enough to admit and defend. This truth is, that the railways are so badly managed that great economies can be effected, and should be effected in the interest of the public. The public seems to have boon the least important thing of all to many of those who contributed to the debate. When the public was mentioned at all, it was generally in such absurd statements as these, both of which were contributed by Sir Joseph Ward : "It was not wise to use the people's railways to extract the last possible farthing from tho people. . . . What should be done was to take a little less from tho public through' the railways and give the staff a little more." It is a depressing fact that nobody pointed out tho absurdity of these statements, and it is a disturbing commentary upon the unregenerate attitude of Parliament that nobody thought of pillorying the characteristic suggestion of the member for Awarua that the way to conserve the national interest in the railways is to cut down revenue and increase expenditure. The bedrock fact about a State railways system which does not pay its way and a reasonable amount over is this: that if the loss is wholly borne by the railway-users, the appearance of cheapness is fictitious, while, if- the loss is partly borne by those who do not use the railways, there is a clear case of robbery and injustice.

Mr. Myers realises this. He proceeded from a much-nceded denunciation of dirocfc Ministerial control of details to a declaration that "a good general manager would save thousands of pounds for this country, and not at the expense of the wage-earners in the Service, without impairing the efficiency of the Service." It is difficult to believe that any member of Parliament, or anybody acquainted with the incapacity of the present management, can in his heart disagree with the member for Auckland East. Mr. Herries, after insisting that there has been "intense dissatisfaction" with the management of the railways, proceeded to absolve the Department from blame, and v,-c are afraid that, while he adhered firmly to the general lines of the JJill, he was anxious to hedge a little throughout. The point of most inportance in his speech, to our mind, was his practical denial of the doctrine that the system should really pay its way. "The trouble," he said, "was that the public expected tho Railways Department to be run as a paying concern." We hope the public as a whole docs hold this sensible opinion; but in any case it is tlio Minister's duty to meet that "trouble" by insisting that the railways shall be run efficiently, and run as a business concern in which everyone pays for service rendered, and nobody is robbed for somebody else's benefit. The Minister went on to say that the "net profits" would lie sufficient if they amounted to .'J:] per cent.—and this although his colleague Mr. Phaser pointed out that 3} per cent, will not meet the interest Bill. With heavy increases in tho wages paid to the Second Division, and heavy increases for the

First Division pending, a very heavy increase of revenue will be necessary and a very drastic cutting away of the waste that has grown up like a fungus on the system under the management during the last fifteen years. The Minister nas this to his credit, of course, that his new managerial policy aims at improved efficiency, but he would have been more reassuring if he had struck this note loudly. The debates showed very plainly that the House abounds in politicians who regard railway questions simply as subjects for making speeches that will please people with votes. All that' is required is a Btrong stand against these hunters of a cheap popularity, and the Minister should make up his mind that they are not in the House to help him to safeguard the national interest. The debate revealed the urgency of tho need that the railways should be kept as far away as possible from the politicians. So loug as the railways are a fishing ground for the politicians, the public interest must suffer. The only thing that will prevent the railwavs from becoming a real menace to the publie interest is strength and courage, in tho new manager. It would pay the country to pay £10,000 or more a year for a strong and resolute man who would be unmoved by the votehunting politicians.