Manawatu Evening Standard. SATURDAY, AUG, 27, 1938. LOSS ON THE RAILWAYS.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVIII, Issue 230, 27 August 1938, Page 8

Manawatu Evening Standard. SATURDAY, AUG, 27, 1938. LOSS ON THE RAILWAYS.

Despite the fact that the Railways Department did more business in the year ended March 31 last than in any previous year in the history of the Dominion, the taxpayer is required to find £1.703,011 as the balance between the net revenue of the Department and the amount required in interest charges, £2,335,808. This is the most unpalatable fact in the whole of the Statement presented to, Parliament by the Minister, and though a good deal of credit is due to the Department’s staff for coping efficiently with greatly enhanced business, it cannot be set aside that the interests of the owners of the system, the people generally, stand in a less favourable light. The net revenue is lower because of increased costs such as higher wages and shorter hours, along with other adjustments, and though the gap between expenditure and revenue is expected to be less in the current year, this will afford little consolation to the taxpayer. If any observer requires concrete evidence of how seriously business generally is affected by the Government’s policy he will find it readily in the Railways Statement ; and for Ministers of the Crown and the Labour members of the House it should provide similar evidence which should be pondered with due seriousness. Much business has been won by the Department through improved methods; a great, deal has been driven toward it by the Government’s socialistic policy in transport matters; yet its balancesheet shows that the outgoings are still substantially greater than the income. The aggregate increase in working expenses was actually £1,114,596 over the previous year.

The Government’s policy is strongly reiterated by the Minister in stating that the improved wage conditions provided for the staff, costing £442,196, more than accounted for the decrease in net revenue. It is “based on the primary consideration that the general standard of living in New Zealand should be such as the country’s great productive capacity justifies” and “is _ applied to the railways as it is* to other industries and to other Government departments, irrespective of whether they are revenue-pro-ducing or otherwise.” The question is, where is the line of subsidy to be defined? Eor instance, there is no reason why, under such a policy of seeming disregard for the net result of the Department’s operations, the Department should not become a readilv absorbing means for the relief "of unemployment, just as public works,,are. The main objects of service and making ends

meet can quite easily become subordinated to political ends. The taxpayers do not seek a profit on the railways; but they do expect that they should be divorced from a policy that compels the taxpayers to pay' out a substantial subsidy each year on the lines of whether the service is “revenue producing or otherwise.” The railways staff is entitled to Conditions equal to those of other employees in industry and it gives a much better service to-day than formerly. The quarrel with the Administration lies in the point that its socialisation policy is steadily pushing the issue of making the railways pay their own interest bill further into the background. There is a lesson in the Railways Statement which no elector can afford to disregard—the Department’s costs are running ahead of its income though the business dealt with is of record proportions, and there is apparently no desire to check this.