RAILWAYS’ REAL RIVAL

Evening Star, Issue 22343, 20 May 1936, Page 11

RAILWAYS’ REAL RIVAL

PRIVATE MOTOR, SAYS MR COATES FUTILITY OF GOVERNMENT'S CONTROL PROPOSAL [Feom Ook Paeliauentaet Reporter.] WELLINGTON, May 19. How far will the Government go in compelling traffic back to the railwayswas an important point discussed during the second reading of the Transport Bill in the House to-night. » The Minister of Transport (Mr Semple) pointed out that the measure would bring all forms of transport under control, because the Minister of Transport would become the sole licensing authority for road and air services, and there was no right of appeal from his decision, though there was power for the Minister to appoint examiners where further evidence or closer investigation was required. As for the railways, the Government possessed the controlling power, through the Minister of Railways, who was responsible to Cabinet. The Bill would control goods services by Order in Council regulating the minimum rates of pay for all engaged in the industry. They had evidence of the hours of motor drivers reaching 16 to 17 per day. A man was found asleep in a lorry at the foot of Paekakariki Hill, and on the long run Palmerston-Wellington v men ■ worked from 16 to 17 hours daily, and. the Government could get no figures showing how they were paid. “We propose,” he continued, “to prevent that kind of sweating that leads to cut-throat competition against legitimate services. These conditions will apply to all operators, including the owner-driver who does not own one spoke of the wheel, and never will. He is used by some individual as a dummy, and works all hours possible for a miserable rate of pay Tinder the disguise of owner-driver. ’ Competition between road and railway over long distances was, said the Minister, not desirable in the public interest. It was therefore proposed to review all existing route licenses which competed with existing rail services for a distance considered unreasonable. ■ The railway aspect of the transport question was dealt with at some length by Mr Coates, who followed the Minister of Transport, the member for Kaipara contending that it had been proved that the use of the railways as part of the national transport system was becoming more and more limited, for there were advantages in road motor transport in the way of cheapness, convenience, and door-to-door delivery. He asked what the Minister thought of the convenience of being able to telephone for goods at 4 p.m. one day and have them delivered at the nearest cross road at 2 a.m., having been transported 125 miles? Was this a service (which he knew well, as_ a specific instance) to be eliminated because it paralleled the railway ? ■ Mr Sullivan (Minister of Railways): “ Co-ordinated.” Mr Coates: Is that service to be eliminated ?

Mr Sullivan: Acquire it. Mr Coates declared that personal service associated with private enterprise would disappear and the system be run entirely by regulation. Mr Lee: Is not that private service regulated by regulation? Mr Coates went on to declare that it was built up on personal service, and possessed a goodwill which no railway could earn, under bureaucratic control. He was not prepared to say the day of the rail was over, but he was emphatic that room must be left for the motor lorry, the most modern form of transportation ; and the question resolved itself into how far the Government would go in prohibiting it and preventing it

from extending. It had been suggested By the. Minister of Railways that this concern must he bolstered up, which! meant the taxpayer had to .find ane and a-half millions to square accounts for interest on capital, because it was ai social service. ' 1 During 1924-25, when the railway deficit was one and a-half millions, the total revenue from passengers on road motor-services .was £521,000, and the official estimate was that approximately £250,000 was in respect of services competing with railways. If the latter cap..tured the whole of this' revenue, they would still be a million down* It was not the licensed road services which had taken the business away from the rail, but the private motor, and the Government, even in Its wildest dreams of Socialism, would surely not prohibit people travelling in their own cars- and force them to travel on the rail, (Laughter.) Ho suggested that this next Government speaker might deal with, the pointy and make the policy clear. Mr Sullivan: Don’t you consider tho possibilities of new forms of fail transport ? Mr Coates replied that there wer«j electric trains which would go faster* but they could not avoid the competition of private cars and their , greater, convenience. Was it worth while chasing a Socialistic idea when private enterprise was providing a suitable service ? Mr Sullivan: You evidently thought so when you spent millions on the railways. Mr Coates: I am glad the non. gentleman thinks it necessary to follow the policy of his predecessors, Mr Lee: But no more balloon loops.Mr Coates repeated that it was impossible to overtake _ railway losses by,’ putting out of existence convenient road, services. .Supposing 3,000 trucks were bought out. by the State, which! the legislation empowered the Government to do, would the Government, hpl asked, prevent ihe operation of ancillary services utilised by merchants and others who wished to deliver their own! .goods to their customers?: If this was done, would they go further and prevent private cars running alongside railway routes? .Mr Sullivan: . A bed-time story* (Laughter.) . ■ 'Mr Coates: I don’t trust the hongentleman’s legislation. It .is all very) fine to say it is a bed-time story. It is the real consequences we have tor watch, knowing the lengths to which the Government is prepared to go to give effect to its Socialistic policy. Mr Parry: Does it hurt? , Mr Coates: “ The people"will he hurt when they know what the Government means, and the country should know, that the Government proposes to replace those engaged in road transport with railwayman, though the. figure* are conclusive that they cannot make it pay.” He suggested.as an.alternative that the Government, in recognition of the developmental value pf the railways, should allocate, say, 25 millions under that heading, and then expect the railways to earn interest oqj tho remaining 29 millions, the rest being a charge on the general taxpayers* Then everybody would know it,_ hut it was no use deluding anyone with the idea the railways could earn interest on ihe whole 54 millions. Mr Sullivan: It means you admit the idea of social service ? , , , Mr Coates: “Up to a point.” This* he suggested, would be. a better approach to the problem than, elimination of private enterprise. Mr Sullivan;. Would not a combination of the two make the best service? Mr Coates replied that he had i to rush through a number'of other point* and could not further deal with that question. .