The Dominion TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1930. MR. VEITCH AND THE RAILWAYS

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 52, 25 November 1930, Page 8

The Dominion TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1930. MR. VEITCH AND THE RAILWAYS

Although the Minister of Railways continues to pronounce optimistically about the future of the railway system, he has yet to define any policy by which its future success or failure can be measured Speaking at Auckland, Mr. Veitch talked at large abou the problen but failed to get down from generalities to details. V hat is wante 1 is a ■ clear-cut objective toward which the department can work, standard by which its operations can be judged. • Mr. Veitch remarks that there are two opposing views, that the railways should be run as a purely commercial proposition, that is, for profit; and, second, that they should be considered as a social service and their losses made up by the general taxpayer. 1 .e question arises, of course, how the degree of social service is to be measured. If that sum can be determined, the country would know whether the service given was equivalent or nearly equivalent to the cost in taxes. Until some practical way of measuring the social service is discovered, it will surely be better to have some visible goa to reach after. . . . rr j Unfortunately that is where the Minister is vague. He adopts neither' the social service nor the business policy but declares we must balance somewhere between the two extremes. But where is the management to balance? Is it to stop when it earns one per cent, on the 60 millions invested in the railways and. leave the rest to be paid by the taxpayers for social service, or is.it to pay two, three, four or even five per cent.? That is the decision which Mr. Veitch as a Minister responsible to Parliament and the country should but does not make. He -pleads that political control is the .best system, but by his own administration proves the lack of grip and decisiveness that is inherent in politics when applied to business. Tn support of his argument that the railways should be considered partly as a social service, Mr. Veitch somewhat artlessly remarks that “we do not look upon the railways merely as a means of extracting money from the public.” The Minister must know, however, tha,. if money is not “extracted” from the payers of freights and fares, it must be drawn from the taxpayers’ pockets. Surely it would be fairer, if “extraction” there must be, to take from the user who certainly gets something tangible for his money, than to raid the communitv for an imponderable benefit called social service. The disposition of the average politician not to face the facts and, by omission of some of them, to conceal the true position from the public, is illustrated by Mr. Veitch’s claim that in the last three months a saving of £150,000 has been effected. It is tiue that in that period expenditure has been reduced by £150,000 but revenue has also declined and by a greater amount, £170,000, so that Compared with last year’s results the accounts for the period are £20,000 to the bad. And last year the railways made a loss of £1,200,000. Mr. Veitch is entitled to credit for slowing down the retrograde movement in the railways finances since he took office but he must acknowledge that already in this financial year, from April 1 to October 11, they have fallen behind the returns for the corresponding period last year by £lOO,OOO. In fact, with more than half the year gone, the department has only £169.000 in hand to set against the annual interest bill of £2,130,000. It is plain that something more than the nerveless political control for which Mr. Veitch stands is required to stop the financial rot. Neither .the Minister nor the Government seems to be able to devise a set policy, much less work to it. Obviously the sooner the railways are placed, under business management, the better for the service itself and for the taxpayer.