NOTES OF THE DAY

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 265, 5 August 1929, Page 10

NOTES OF THE DAY

In view of the difficulty of tracing the individuals responsible for incendiary fires it would appear to be a somewhat unwise proceeding for the. police authorities to have allowed their special arrangements for policing the Christchurch district to have been made public. Incendiarism in Christchurch has already resulted in very serious losses, which seem likely to continue until the individuals concerned have either been caught, or scared by the preparations, now announced for catching them. In the latter event, there is no guarantee that they will not transfer their nefarious energies to another centre. It might also be. pertinent to inquire why the reinforcing of the Christchurch police has been delayed until the series of fire losses has reached a total of £50,000.

Considerable interest will be taken by the Dominions, and especially in those east of Suez, in the*new Treaty which the British Labour-Socialist Government proposes to conclude'with the Egyptian Government. As with its policy of naval disarmament, the British Government seems inclined to risk a good deal ’on sentiment. A subsequent generation may be called upon either to applaud this as prescient statesmanship, or condemn it as irresponsible imprudence. Mr. MacDonald declares that they in England have as much reason to fear for the security of the Canal communications as we in the Pacific, and for that reason all possible steps will be taken to safeguard them. The crux of the question is the degree of security which will be assured, and the general opinion, British and Dominion, as to whether the measure is adequate.

In one sense the observation made by Mr. R. A. Wright in Parliament on Friday that the votes of members are very little influenced, if at all, by the speeches in the House, is probably correct. Legislative procedure has become so much a matter of party voting that the result is frequently a foregone conclusion. But if, as Mr. Wright says, the speeches of members apparently count for little in the House, they certainly count for something with public opinion, and therein lies the main and most important value of their addresses. The discussion on a Bill, may seem to be a somewhat perfunctory proceeding when the ultimate decision is plain to be seen, but from the public’s point of view it is informative. From this aspect Mr.’ Wright’s remark that he spoke because his constituents expected him to speak had both the humour which amused the House and the point of a sound contention. Many a member may have lost his seat in Parliament through the temporary unpopularity of his party, but not a few have suffered political oblivion through their inability to express effectively their views and those of their constituents.

There is an unpleasant suggestion, if not a threat, in the Budget of Government interference with motor transport in order to bolster up the railways. In several places reference is made to motor competition and the losses the railways suffer through the building of good roads for motor traffic, and this definite pronouncement is then made: “In fact, in view of the serious loss that will certainly result if the present trend of affairs is allowed to continue, I believe that the Government would be failing in its duty if it did not make a determined effort to control transport in the interests of the Dominion as a whole.” Past experience has shown that when the State or a municipality sets out to control a rival form of transport it is liable to mean a serious encroachment on private enterprise, and possibly heavy losses to those “controlled.” In a later passage the Finance Minister intimates that the new Advisory Council of the Ministry of Transport “will be asked to fully investigate the whole complex problem and report to the Government as to the best means of eliminating wasteful competition and promoting co-ordination between the road and rail facilities of the Dominion.”

It is very curious that while he sees the necessity for the fullest investigation into this phase of the transport problem before the Government embarks on a definite course of action, Sir Joseph Ward will not entertain the proposal for an impartial investigation befoic committing the country to millions of fresh expenditure on railway projects. The Budget shows very clearly what a heavy drain on the pockets of the people the existing railway services are proving. In face of motor competition and the general costs of construction and operating, the annual loss of 3 million a year on the railways bids fair to double in a few years. The Finance Minister is so convinced of the gravity of the position that he proposes to write off as lost something over £8,(XX),000 of the capital sunk in the railways. And while admitting the necessity for this drastic step he proposes to spend anything from £10,000,000 upwards on building fresh railways which expert opinion has pronounced as certain to prove uneconomic and swell the existing losses. In view of the fact that he recognises the necessity for a full investigation into the transport problem, why does not Sir Joseph Ward cover future railway construction in the investigation? It is a very serious matter for the country, and every pound of proposed expenditure on public works undertakings should be most carefully scrutinised if taxation is to be keot within bounds and sound progress made.