“DENYING FREEDOM”

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 199, 20 May 1936, Page 12

“DENYING FREEDOM”

Mr. Coates Condemns the Measure PRIVATE ENTERPRISE ON CHOPPING BLOCK "1 oppose tills Bill lock, stock and barrel,” said the lit. Hon. .1. G. Coates (Opposition, Kaipara). “Private enterprise in transport is to be placed on the chopping block and Hie public interest must .suffer accordingly. Il requires only careful and intelligent supervision by the State for private enterprise to play an important part in this as well as other national services. Tlie public has been led to expect a reasonable development of transport services, but the Government’s proposals mean the socialisation of transport and absolute bureaucratic control of services which demand individual initiative and ability.” .Mr. Coates reviewed the present position of the railways with regard to tlie transport of both passengers and goods. In certain directions, he said, particularly in long haulage traffic and in the handling of bulk and heavyweight commodities, the rail was still supreme, but in other directions road transport had been proved to be cheaper, quicker and generally more convenient.

The Railways Department, with £54,000,000 of capital invested as at March 31, 1935, necessitating a net interest yield of nearly £2.500.000 in order to square accounts, employed a staff of about 16,000. It was not under the same obligation as private enterprise to pay the taxes levied on motor transport, which in themselves were largely responsible for the maintenance of roads. The Government’s policy of adding new lines which were likely to prove unprofitable was not likely to improve the revenue position, and yet the aim of the Government, as suggested in the Bill, was to protect the railways by taking power to restrict or even to prohibit road services. Earnings of Railways. It could be shown that road services did not affect to any marked extent the earnings of the railways. The deficit in the Railways Account for 193435 was nearly £1,250,000. During the same period the total gross passenger revenue of all licensed road services was £521,000, but the official estimate was that only £250,000 of that amount was in respect of services which competed with the railways. Even if the railways captured the whole of that competitive traffic and were able to handle it at no additional cost, the railway deficit would still be about £1,000,000 annually. To bring about that small easing of railway losses, there would be colossal damage to private enterprise which had already proved it could provide efficient service. “If is not the licensed road service wliir/i has taken the business away from the railways," Mr. Coates said. “H is the private ear. Official figures provide ample proof of this. "In 192-1-25, with a train mileage of 9,083.000 miles, the railways carried 26.074,000 passengers. In .1929-30, with a train mileage of .12.000,000 miles, representing a 30 per cent, increase, the number of passengers was 25,350,000, a decrease of 700,000 passengers in five years. Over the .same period the railway passenger revenue fell from £2,288.000 to' £1,196,000. a decrease of £292,000. In 1934-35 the number of passengers had fallen to 19.654,000, and the revenue was £1,368,000. "In ten years there has been a decline in gross passenger revenue of £920,000, and when it is remembered that road services competing with the rail earn in revenue only £250,000 annually it is obvious that business lias been lost principally to the private ear. I take it that even in its wildest dreams ot Socialism the Government does not propose to prohibit people from travelling in their own private cars and to force them to travel by rail.” Goods Revenue. The railways goods revenue had not been affected to the same extent as passenger revenue, Mr. Coates continued. Although (he tonnage fell from 7,025,006 tons In 1924-25 to 5,642,000 tons in 1934-35, there was actually a small increase in revenue of £16,000. The railways had had to resort in despair to numerous local and often discriminatory rates to protect their goods traffic. In respect of the highest rated goods, the railway rate last year between Auckland and Te Kuiti, where road competition was negligible, was £3/14/3 a ton for 126 miles. From Auckland to Waihi, where road competition existed, it was £.l/15/- a ton for 142 miles. In the latter case the railways hauled goods for an increased distance at less than half the cost in order to meet competition. Numerous similar instances could be quoted. Road services had been able to carry on even under those conditions, but the effect on coastal shipping and certain harbours had proved almost disastrous. Surely that was an argument for coordination of all services rather than exclusive use of the railways. ■Vehicles engaged in licensed goods services comprised only 3355 out of a total of about 38,000 motor-trucks. If the licensed goods services were legislated out of operation, what would happen to the 35,000 privately-owned trucks? Private firms might still want to transport their own goods on their own trucks. Would the Government step in and command them to send their goods by rail? Clause 15 of the Bill stated quite definitely that road services with approximately the same routes or terminal points as rail services could be denied licenses and forced out of existence, Mr. Coates continued. It was also stated that there could be no extension of existing road services, but the term extension was carefully left undefined. It could be applied to an extension of equipment and plant as well as to an extension of route. Road operators could be refused permission to put on extra vehicles to cope with increasing traffic. Absolute Protection. Tlie railways were to lie given absolute protection. Tlie Government, in attempting to socialise transport, was actually following a reactionary course fraught with danger for Hie community as a whole. Tlie whole transport system of Hie country could be thrown back 20 years. “Ib lias been laid down that the object of any transport system must bo to ensure that the public is provided witli the cheapest and most efficient form of transportation,” Mr. Coates said. “History reveals successive replacements of one form of transportation by another, and tlie Minister himself, in his historical review of transport in New Zealand, has admitted that argument. We are far removed from Hie (lays of the stage coach and the bullock team. Does not the Minister

realise that by protecting Hie railways he may be protecting something already growing obsolete in certain directions? Road transport can only lie developed by having a right to expand. Under the Government’s legislation it will l.c denied that right. One-Man Authority. There was power in the Bill, Mr. Coates continued, for setting up oneman authorities instead of the existing tribunals and by Order-in-Council tlie number of authorities and number of transport districts could be reduced. One man, presumably a civil servant, responsible to tlie Minister and Hie Government of the day, could be charged with the licensing of transport. It might lie said that only a simplification of method was proposed, but the inherent danger was that of political control. A study of the Bill forced the conclusion that the proposed alterations in tlie constitution of licensing authorities were only a piece of legislative bluff. The Minister was given power to override the decisions of the authorities and would become a Dictator of Transport with power to suspend or revoke existing licenses by star chamber methods. All appeals had to be made to the Minister. It was laid down further that the Minister need not hear an;, person, take any evidence or receive any representations. He was encased in bullet-proof armour and placed in a strong-room. His decisions could not be challenged. Power of Minister. “With the Minister in the position of having to decide all appeals, political considerations must count.” Mr. Coates added. “It will be impossible for him to be blind to the political side of any case submitted to him. If one of his co-opted members is allowed .to decide appeals, the political difficulty is still there, and if the appeal is passed on to the Commissioner of Transport or some other departmental officer a decision will be obtained from a man who for the time being must give expression to the will of the Government in power. The political consideration intrudes all along the road. “The logical conclusion from the Bill is that people are to be told how they are to travel and when they are to travel. Two men in the Cabinet, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Railways, will tie able to impose their will on the whole country —the travelling public and the people who require transport for their goods. Under the clause which protects the Railways Department there is even the impossible situation of one form of transport sitting in judgment on all others.

“The Government is denying freedom and attempting to abolish any suggestion of competition which is the key to improved conditions and services. It appears to take the view that transport problems resolve themselves into a question of rail versus road. This view is almost criminal in its narrowness. There should be no question of warring interests. It should not be rail versus road, but rail and road.”