PORT, ROAD, AND RAIL

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 18, 21 July 1932, Page 10

PORT, ROAD, AND RAIL

Complete * understanding of the transport problem' of New Zealand has not yet been brought about. In some quarters it is still viewed as a tussle for business. This is wrong. Competition there may be-and should be to promote efficiency; but nationally the task is co-operation rather than competition. As an example of the misunderstanding we may cite a statement by Mr. A. E. Jull, M.P., speaking as a member of the Napier Harbour Board. . Mr. ■ Jull said: . ,

We do feel that there is a feeling among certain people in this country, and only last week it was mentioned by no less a perspn than tlie chairman of the Railways Board that too much was being spent in harbours, and that the question of harbours is one that has to be faaed, apparently for the benefit of the railways system. We in this district do not applaud that attitude; and the possibility of centralisation. While it, may reflect to theadvantago of the railways, it will not act.to the advantage of the country as a whole.

The statement is correct in so far as it relates to the feeling that too much is being spent in harbours; but it is incorrect to suggest that this must be faced "apparently for the benefit of the railways system." The benefit to the railways\ system is a secondary consideration. The primary concern is the national benefit.' If the national good will be promoted by developing harbours and neglecting railways, by all means let that course be followed. Bufc^we are: firmly of the opinion that far too much harbour expenditure in the past has merely served to divert traffic from the rail without cheapening the transport cost all accounts are taken. Having had one system which served well, we have spent hundreds of thousands of pounds in providing an alternative— and without any net gain from the additional expenditure. /.■- The Chairman„ of the Railways Board did not lay undue stress.upon the railway business aspect. His emphasis was rather upon the expense incurred in construpting manyharbours and "the result (he said) has been in many cases to provide a competitive means of transport for the railways.". .

The -wast© entailed in having large steamers travelling round the coast of New Zealand must be apparent to anyone; and if for no other reason than that the limit of the Dominion's capacity to afford this has b^en reached^ the position must be faced and something done to retrieve it.

Mr." Sterling referred to Parliament's provision towards co-ordination of land transport, and added:

I believe the time is not far aisjtant when in the interests of the economic rehabilitation i-of New Zealand the situation arising out of the waste that has been, and still is'being, caused by providing and working . many of the harbours -will have to be resolutely tackled. The principal difficulties in the past, as I sco it, have been the predominant influence of small sectional interests,and the failure to co-ordinate thougnt before action on the transport question.

It is the economic rehabilitation of the Dominion that must be sought, and neither the sectional interest of a' small harbour nor the particular interest of the railways. M the railway profit can be increased that is a national gain, but the idea of improving the financial .position of the railways must not lead us to overlook losses in other directions. Nor must the prosperity of any harbour, big or small, take precedence of national prosperity. It is not centralisation that we advocatethough we beheve the efficient and well-equipped harbours should be used to the full—but the use of the most economic means of transport. Tf such means are to be discarded because of the bogy of centralisation, then decentralisation will prove a costly luxury.