The Dominion. TUESDAY, JANUARY 14, 1936. POLITICS AND THE RAILWAYS

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 93, 14 January 1936, Page 8

The Dominion. TUESDAY, JANUARY 14, 1936. POLITICS AND THE RAILWAYS

Among the various boards ear-marked for extinction by the new Labour Government is, according to the Hon. R. Semple, the Railways Board. Railways management in New Zealand has had a somewhat chequered history. Up to 1876 they were controlled by the Provincial Governments. In that year they were handed over to the Public Works Department and later to a “Working Railways Department.” In 1887 a board of three Railways Commissioners was appointed. The Commissioners reigned for five years, at the end of which period the system of control was changed, and foi nearly thirty years the control of the railways was vested in a Genet al Manager, responsible to the Minister of Railways. In 1925 there was another change, the railways passing under the control of a board of three members. That system lasted for three years, giving place in 1928 to the method of control which preceded it—a general manager responsible to the Minister of Railways. The general manager reigned for three years, and then came the present system of control by a board of five members, whose fate is now in the balance.

In the light of this brief synopsis of the history of railways management in New Zealand, the Labour Government’s proposal to abolish the board system now in existence shows that it is simply running true to political form. The pendulum has swung this way and that, according to the mood of the democracy and. its representatives in Parliament. If political control resulted in uneconomic administration and a public outcry, the Government of the day said, in effect: “Very well, we’ll hand the railways over to a board and let it run them on business lines.” If the board’s methods of running the railway business did not satisfy the public, there was another outcry, and political control again came on the scene. The cycle of events has now brought the railways to the point at which it seems likely, according to the Hon. R. Semple, that they will revert to political control. It is to be hoped that the Government will be able to submit sound arguments in support of the change, because its predecessors in changing over from political to board control gave reasons which at the time seemed well founded and convincing. Shortly stated, these reasons Went to show that political control had involved the railways in substantial losses which, if continued, would eventually have reduced them to complete bankruptcy. Statistics revealed a definite tendency in that direction. The Government realised that unless the management, of the railways was placed on a business footing, free from political control, this tendency could not be checked. It therefore, with the approval of Parliament, handed over the management to the present board. Whatever the public may think of the. board’s policy and methods—it is hard to imagine that it can possibly think otherwise than in favourable terms—it must admit that prudent management and commendable enterprise in developing business have rescued the railways from a perilous situation and placed the system on the high road to complete recovery, thereby lightening the strain on the country’s finances. Certain decisions which had to be made in order to restore the equilibrium of railways finance were not popular in certain quarters. To have decided otherwise would have been to court disaster. Economies in administration, in operating costs, and the elimination of unprofitable business were necessary. The board was created for a definite purpose, namely, to rescue. the railways from bankruptcy. It had a specific job to do, and did it to the best of its ability, judged by results, it was successful. Can sound reasons be given for reverting to political control: According to Mr. Semple the Government has no power in the control of the railways. “You will realise,” he said in a speech at Nelson, “that at present Cabinet has no power to say that this or that job will be done, owing to the powers conferred on the Railways Board.” But is this strictly true? If it were, then the position would be that the people would have no say in railways, policy,- no voice in the management of their own business. But it is not true. Cabinet is the executive of Parliament, and Parliament has power under existing legislation to intervene in railways policy and management if and when it deems action to be desirable.

Section 18 of the Act of 1931, constituting the Railways Board and defining its powers, makes that-perfectly clear:

(1) “Where after the commencement of this Act any special Act authorising the construction of any Government railway is passed without a report by the board on the proposed railway being first laid before Parliament, no work in connection with such construction shall, save as such special Act expressly otherwise directs, be undertaken until a report by the board respecting the railway so authorised is laid before both Houses of Parliament and a resolution approving such work, is passed l>y both such Houses. (2) “Where before the commencement of this Aet work in connection with the construction of any Government railway or part thereof has been suspended and has not been resumed at the commencement of this Act, such work shall not thereafter be resumed until a report respecting such railway or part of railway has been' laid before both Houses of Parliament, and a resolution authorising the completion of such work has been passed by both such Houses.

(3) “At any time within one year after the commencement of this Aet the board may submit to the Minister a report on any railway or part of railway the construction of which was begun before the commencement of this Act. recommending that the work of construction be not’ further proceeded with or that it be carried out to stiph extent only as is recommended by. the board. The Minister shall as soon as practicable after receiving such report cause the same to be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and if both such Houses pass a resolution approving the recommendation of the board no further work in connection with the construction of such railway or part of railway shall thereafter be carried out save in accordance with the recom- ' mendation of the hoard.”

The italics are ours, to emphasise the point that in such controversial questions as the East Coast railway, the South Island Main Trunk, and the Midland railway, for example, the will of Parliament, which is the people, is paramount. The purpose of this section is to ensure that the opinions of the Railways Board will be heard and considered by Parliament itself, that the policy and management of the board will not be stultified by political interference exerted through Cabinet. What is there in this system of control, which seems admirably designed to free the railways from political influence while at the same time retaining Parliament’s control over them, that is objectionable to the Government? The old system of political control produced los,ses: the present system, satisfactory results. Why revert to .the other? “