Railway Problems

Evening Star, Issue 20311, 21 October 1929, Page 15

Railway Problems

Minister on His Policy

Important Points Raised

In the course of his reply early on Wednesday morning to the thirty-six speakers who participated in the main debate on the railways, tho Minister of Railways (Hon. W. B. Taverner) raised some important policy points, including the question of making the railways pay, commercialisation, accountancy methods, and workshops reorganisation.

Mr Taverner said: “ I would first of all like to thank the House for the very evident spirit of sincerity with which honourable members entered this debate, which has been an informative and pleasant one. If I correctly interpret the minds of hon. members as expressed during this debate, I would say that the amount set down as a loss on the year’s working is not considered as causing any considerable anxiety. Briefly put, it would appear that non. members are of opinion that a sum far greater than that which is shown as a loss could very easily be set down in respect of the service rendered to the country generally and the benefits that have accrued from the year’s working of the railway system. In regard to the question of making the railways pay, I wish to say that there is much to be done before that very desirable condition can bo brought about. We are in a period of transition, and we are faced with conditions* in railway working which were never anticipated, much less provided for. Under those circumstances it is only to be expected that, apart altogether from the manner in which the department for the time being be administered a period must be passed through when those adjustments will have to he made as far as we are able to make them; and before we can speak of the railways paying or indicate that a stage has been reached when wo can look for anything like a profit being made on the system many disabilities will have to be removed. It is necessary to have regard to the large amount of now worthless capital that is in the system. I do not suggest for a moment that that is anyone’s fault, but the fact is that we are possessed to-day of book ' assets ’ that have no value. That is forced upon us by circumstances which not only were not ’contemplated, but over which no one had any control. Then, again, transportation generally, as has been emphasised by many bon. gentlemen this evening, must' be set upon a proper business basis, and that cannot bo done overnight, as we are all perfectly well aware. While we may differ as to just what ought to be done to bring the relative branches of transportation into a proper locus, we are certainly all in agreement that something should be done, and that as early as possible. I submit that the Government is not neglecting its very evident duty in that connection. Then there is the question of business methods which has been emphasised by lion, members. There is, of course, no limit to the extent to which business methods can be induced into a private concern in which some sixty millions of money is invested ; but ideas differ as to the extent to which ordinary business methods can be applied to a great department of State. SOUND BUSINESS. Oh the other hand, 1 submit that the correct attitude to take up is this: if we regard ourselves as business men having a reasonable amount of common sense and business acumen, we will certainly say that no policy can lie lasting, or is of any value to the country at largo, unless it is built upon sound business principles. That can be said without the slightest fear of contradiction, 1 submit. Proceeding from that basic principle we at once come to the important question of the continuance, abandonment, or modification oi non-paying branch lines. That has a very important bearing, indeed, upon the question of making the railways pay. Unfortunately the time at my disposal does not permit of my dealing in detail with that aspect of the problem, nor for the same reason can I possibly give answers to the numerous questions which have been submitted Hon. Mr Wilford: There have been thirty-six speakers. _ Hon. Mr Taverner* That is so, and without exception they have introduced matter for consideration of substantial local importance, and of great national importance in many cases. I want to assure hon. members that, while I cannot reply to those questions and suggestions in detail, I have a note of, I think, all of them—certainly of the principal ones—and full consideration will be given to them. Particularly do I refer to the matters which members are interested in locally. I would like to refer briefly to the criticism levelled against the Statement by the hon. member for Auckland Suburbs, who was inclined to whip me with_ the lash of his political scorn and to indicate that the Statement lacked definition, and, in short, was of very little value. He drew a very vivid picture of the General Manager and myself groping in the darkness for a few shreds of ideas that might be fitted together and made into some semblance of a poliev. The hon. gentleman, 1 suggest,‘with all his critical and analytical ability, is looking through the diminishing end of the telescope. I suggest that while paying attention to a cogent analvsis such as he desired to make, he failed to appreciate the broad application of tho principles enunciated in the Statement now before the House. I say that after being in office some four months only, and with a general manager who had only taken lull charge of his very onerous duties about ten days before I took up the position which I had the honour of occupyingRight Hon. Mr Coates: Four months? „ ’ . , Hon. Mr Taverner: I am referring to the period up to March 81. the end ot the year under review. I made a careful note of the remarks of the non member for Stratford, and although 1 have great personal regard for the non. gentleman I could not help thinking that my hon. friend takes up this position: ho stands on a lofty political eminence and he _ surveys hrs fellowmembers, sorrowing that all their efforts have gone for naught. _ In short, the impression which he desired to create was that if we want to know just bow to get on with the job we ought to have sense enough to apply to the hon. member for Stratford. During the course of his rem arks _ the bon. gentleman said that the Minister was _ making heavy weathcr_ of it. and that the iob was beyond his capacity, but he modified that statement to some extent when he added these words: “ Owing to the legacy of the past.” He further went on to remark that it was necessary that it should be explained to the House how we should get hack to a reasonable business basis. His remarks were on the lines of destructive criticism, and there was not one single idea put forward to back up the statements made. The'hon. gentleman was

also very unfair to the General Manager in regard to the reference contained in the General Manager’s report about the utilisation of the railway services by the farming community. I want to place on record this fact, that the General Manager was perfectly fair when he penned the words which have been spoken of, and it is regrettable that, with that somewhat warped political sons© which the hon. member possesses, it was possible to pick out one sentence and deal with it without any reference to that which followed. _ The words complained of were: “It is regrettable indeed that we find on some occasions farmers’ organisations taking an all too narrow view of their obligation in this regard.” If that remark had been written with respect to any other section of the community probably it would have passed unnoticed. That paragraph was followed up with what I think can rightly be described as a perfectly fair a»d generous tribute, as follows:—“We have found that the greater proportion of the farming community appreciate the position and accord us their loyal support. I would plead with the remainder to consider the position well, as they are in danger of doing an injury not only to themselves, but to the farming community as a whole.”

1 submit that there was nothing wrong in that_ statement, and it is not open to_ the interpretation that it is antagonistic to the fanning community in any way whatsoever. I oolieve, with a reasonable amount of inside knowledge, that the farming community is not only well catered for, but also that the trade of the farmers is appreciated and their support is desired, and, indeed, expected. FINANCIAL REVIEW DUE. The hon. member for Dunedin West went to some pains to describe three methods under which it would be possible to rnu the department—that is, financially; and he is to be thanked for his contribution to the debate—there is no question about that. The thought occurred to me, however, while the hon. gentleman was speaking; What was the policy of the previous Government of which the hon. gentleman was a member? There had been, I submit, ample time to develop any of the policies which the hon. gentleman outlined, but that was not done. One can be forgiven if he supposes—judging the remarks which have been made'by many speakers to-night—that it was seriously contemplated that in a few short weeks there would be a complete reversal of policy, and that there would be a new system of accounting brought about. I think that we can claim to be broadminded enough, and to have a reasonable amount of discretion when dealing with the work of our predecessors, nut I want to say that it was not possible to make any review of the accounting system of the department until the year’s accounts wore made up. The opportunity now presents itself to go into these matters, and while I am doing so I shall certainly have regard to the suggestions put before me tonight. I do not want to convey the impression that good work has not been done, or that the system in vogue is not, generally speaking, quite in order.

Rt. Hon. Mr Coates: Is it wrong? Hod. Mr Taverner: I am not suggesting that, but 1 do suggest that there is a proper time to review. The hon. member tor Gisborne was interested in the question of Edison battery cars and suggested that we should adopt those cars in place of any other type of vehicle which we might be recommended to procure. Now, that Edison battery car costs £14.600, and it costs 2s 4d per mile to run; there is a depreciation of 10 per cent, on the car and 20 per cent, on the battery—that is to say, the battery has a life of five years. I would Hire to say in reference to this rail car question which is very important—that it has _ been suggested that all the information is available. That is to say, the maker’s catalogues wore procurable, and the department -ould have bought on the information contained in those catalogues, some of these vehicles referred to. Well, I do not think that is the way to go about the matter; 1 do not think that anyone occupying a responsible position I would be expected to procure a new type of vehicle in that manner. I certainly would not do it. Therefore, I adopted what I consider to be the proper course, by sending a competent officer abroad to get first-hand information, to see rail cars under working conditions, to visit the makers, and to bring back a report as to what is being done in other lands. The cost of that trip is not large, and the information which wo will gain will be of great value. I want to thank the hon. member for Avon for his kindly tribute to myself and to the statement under consideration. 1 should like to address a few remarks to the hon. member for Auckland West in regard to social service and this great question of commercialism. I think that we ought to clearly understand what is meant by commercialisation, and it seems to mo that, in so far as commercialisation is synonymous with proper business methods, then it is clear what is the right course to adopt. The term “ commercialisation ” has been used by some hon. members in a somewhat clastic manner, and if asked to define what they mean I think some would have a difficulty in doing’ so. At the same time, I think the test of any system of commercialisation, or the extent to which it should he applied to the man- : agement of a great department of State, is obviously the quality of the business methods which are adopted, and we should be sturdy enough, both | politically and otherwise, to adopt imI proved business methods where such are required. The people of this coun- | try are sufficiently wide awake and in- ! telligent to understand business methods when put before them, and to give , support to the carrying out of those I ideas. That is my idea of commercial! sation. I do not think it lacks definition. and I think those are the lines on which we should go. The remarks of the_ Leader of the Opposition, in which I listened with a great amount of interest and attention, seemed to mo for_ the most part in support of the policy which be and his colleagues previously laid down, and I cannot find any fault with the rt. hon. gentleman for that.

Rt, Hon. Mr Coates: My remarks were in no sense a criticism of the hon. gentleman. THE WORKSHOPS. Hon. Mi’ Taverner: I quite understand and appreciate that point; but 1 would point out that there are some things in that policy, and undertakings which were in course of development, which had to be carried on. Take, for example, the question' of the railway workshops extension: it is a work that, however one might have differed on a question of policy, had to be carried to completion. There is no question about that, and that work is being properly carried to completion. Then reference has bean made to the fact that 1 have not given a definite statement as to my appreciation or my condemnation of that great undertaking. Only time will prove whether that will frove economical for the country, do not think any fairminded man could take up any other attitude. It would have been presumption on my part to come here and say that I thought it was all useless, and should not lhavo been done. On the other hand, I am not prepared to support everything that has been done in connection with that expenditure. Personally, I think it would nave been better had the scheme not been so large, but had been more elastic, so that it could have been extended ns required. The work had reached a very advanced stage when I assumed the control of the department, and now has to be completed in a proper manner. There is no question that it will enable good work to be done, and provide a greater degree of comfort for the staff employed. Then the hon. member for Timaru remarked that he thought the Minister would do nothing rash. Well, I thank the hon. gentleman for his appreciation expressed in that way, and I trust that I shall always merit that statement. I certainly shall not try to do anything rash, and I do not think that anyone acquainted with me or with the general manager would say that we are deficient in ideas or unable to make decisions, or lack the power to stick to them when we make them. The same hon, gentleman paid a tribute to the staff, and I can say honestly and sincerely that it is well merited. The Railway Department has the advantage of a most excellent staff, men who are imbued with a high sense of the importance of their work, and who pull together in a splendid manner. It has been a pleasure to me as Minister to meet the various branches of employees, to assist them where I could, and to understand their point of view. They work together in a perfectly harmonious fashion. CONCESSIONS TO FARMERS. Some comment has been made upon the much-discussed question of concessions to farmers, and it has been pointed out that the department should be alive to the fact that its receipts for the carriage of goods back from the farms have been materially increased because of the extra production resulting from the use fef fertilisers carried cheaply on the railway. No one will cavil at that statement. But, on the other hand, we are asked, both in the House and through the Press, to introduce business methods and commercialise the railways. When we reply, however, that it would bo perfectly fair that the department should be credited for all services rendered, we are brought to a standstill. I do not suggest that there should be any restrictions in regard to those concessions allowed to the farming community. 1 see no reason why they should not be extended. Rt. Hon, Mr Coates; They cannot bo called concessions. Hon. Mr Taverner: They are spoken of as concessions, and I am merely using the terra that is in current use. Rt. Hon. Mr Coates: That is where there is some misunderstanding, but the matter is really in the interests of the country. It is a policy question. Hon. Mr Taverner: Yes. I agree that it is a policy question. Captain Rushwortn: We object to the term. Hon. Mr Taverner: Wo can alter the terra. There is no need to adhere to the expression “ concessions.” If the hon. member for the Bay of Islands suggests a better term I shall be pleased to adopt it. The point is that while it is quite right as a national policy, why should the Railways Account not receive a credit for the services the department renders? On the one hand, as 1 have stated, there is a demand for business methods and commercialisation, and yet the department is expected to give services without adequate payment. Captain Rusnworth: What about the services rendered to other industries? Hon. Mr Taverner; My remarks apply to all cases where the department is not receiving adequate credit for the services rendered. I wish to thank hon. members once more for the kindly spirit they have introduced into the debate. Mr H. E. Holland: What about the system of accounting? Hon. Mr Taverner: I have referred to that matter. I have given a certain amount of consideration to the question. Mr H. E. Holland; I did not hoar the Minister refer to the point 1 raised. CHRISTCHURCH RAILWAY STATION, Later, in Committee of Supply, Mr Taverner went into detail in answering questions. With respect to the desirability of making provision for the construction of a new railway station at Christchurch, he said it was recognised that better provision was required, but it was not possible to make arrangements in that connection during the current year. The construction of the Wellington station was part of the programme and would be carried out according to plan, but a very small portion of the expenditure would be incurred in the current financial year. No plans had been prepared for the new Christchurch station. The hon. members representing Christchurch constituencies could rest assured that the Christchurch railway station would be undertaken as soon as opportunity permitted. The suggestion of the hon. member for Riccarton that the new station should be located at Addington would be given consideration.