Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 3rd., 1930. RAILWAY REFORMS

Greymouth Evening Star, 3 October 1930, Page 6

Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 3rd., 1930. RAILWAY REFORMS

PERHAPS the first thought in the publie, mind on reading the summarised recommendations of the Railways Commission will he to wonder that sueh inefficiency in administration could have continued so long, unchecked, that is, if the Commission’s censures are justified. H is affirmed in the report <that railway services are too cheap, the staffs underworked and overpaid, that the system of control is absurd, and that generally, the organisation could be greatly improved. This is not the first inquiry report of recent years regarding railway matters, hut it is Hie first to be so candid about the shortcomings of management, and it supports the popular belief, outside the service, that great waste was going on. and this was partly responsible for Hie heavy annual financial deficiencies. Every Minister of Railways, in turn, has ridiculed such an idea. In order 1o obtain the advantages of rhe privately-owned railways system, combined with State control, it is proposed by the Commission that the Dominion’s railways should be removed from political control, and placed under a

competent Board el‘ Directors. This proposal, in theory, has been given support already in the House, by members of all Parties, but whether

this advocacy was sincere, remains io be seen. It cannot be doubted that political influence has not been to the financial advantage of lhe State railways, hut will tin* Members cheerfully surrender their present privilege to a dictatorship which could ignori* them and their constituents’ requests ? Will the railwaymen’s unions be apathetic towards schemes of management that must be to their disadvantage ? The Commission thinks that a Board of Directors, qualified men, could be obtained at a cost of less than .14.000 annually. This estimate seems optimistic, for if such Board is to exercise real control of the staff as well as the services, it will be a full-time job. Something more than “ordinary company directors” is required.

The Commission favours the abolition of the Kailways Appeal Board and makes drastic recommendations regarding organisation.

Fares and freights are recommended to be increased, which proposal does not appear likely to increase] patronage. Some of the concessions at present granted by the Department are regarded as too generous —as indeed they are.—and these are recommended to be placed on a more commercial footing. Unprofitable services should be minimised, and certain privileges to railway staffs are urged to be re-considered. Motor competition is to be met by legislation, control preventing rivalry. This suggestion needs most careful consideration, as the possibilities of grievous harm being done to public as well as private, interests, are too obvious to need detailing. Remembering what the Railways Department’s attitude was before motoring developments caused officials to be less arrogant, the people of this country will hesitate before approving anything like a Government monopoly of land transport in the Dominion. Summed up, the report of the Commission is not epoch-making. Nothing really novel is suggested, and the report is really an indictment of those who have hitherto been responsible for the Railways Department, and of those Parliaments and Ministers who have passively sanctioned the continuation of inefficiency in administration.