Can State Enterprise Give Service?

Northern Advocate, 21 May 1936, Page 8

Can State Enterprise Give Service?

Members Of The House Voice Their Opinions

[Per Press Association. — Copyright .] WELLINGTON, This Day. irpHE second reading debate on the Transport Licensing Amendment Bill had the attention of the House of Representatives last evening. Features were, the reply by Mr J. A. Lee (Government — Grey Lynn) to Mr Coates, and the criticism of the measure by Mr W. J, Broadfoot (Opposition—WaTtomo). These are reported in other columns.

; Mr H. S. S. Kyle (Opposition —Riecarton) contended that State enterprise could not give the same service as private enterprise. He gave instances of cases in Christchurch and Canterbury where private control had succeeded where State or municipal control had failed. Surely, he said, the Government was not going to socialise the shipping service, and said that they knew what had happened in Australia when the Labour Government established a State shipping service. Mr Speaker said there whs no provision for control of shipping services in the Bill and ruled Mr Kyle out of order in referring to it. Entire Control Planned. Mr Kyle said it looked as if the Government intended to take entire control of transport services/ of the Dominion. He thought private enterprise should be allowed to continue. The Rev. A. H. Nordmeyer (Government —Oamaru) said the large number of amendments to the transport law was so confusing that even lawyers Viad to approach the Transport Department for an interpretation of the various provisions. He thought the Government would be wise to consider a consolidating measure, which would simplify the position. He said the Bill did what Mr v Coates took unto himself to do three years ago, and yet he now said he was opposed to it, lock stock and barrel.

All provisions of the Bill, he said, must commend themselves to the in-

telligencs of ordinary people. Mr Coates, for his own convenience, saw many things that were not in the Bill, and failed to see the things that were in the Bill. Transport Board Costs. He said that for the two years in which the Transport Co-ordination Board had been in existence the chairman drew £llß7 in salary, and £SOB for travelling expenses. One member received £989 as salary and £513 for travelling expenses; the third member, £989 as salary and £547 for travelling expenses; making a totaj. of £4733.

Tiie Rev. Nordmeyer said he did net know the whole mind of the Minister, but he did not think it was intended to take control of the whole of the auxiliary services of the Dominion. At least on two occasions, he continued, the former Minister had so much confidence in the Transport Coordination Board that, after asking it to make an investigation, he entirely neglected to act upon its recommendations. V Minister Congratulated. Mr D. McDougall (Independent — Mataura) congratulated the Minister of Public Works in bringing the Bill before the House, and he said he was sure it would go through. If they could only cut down the death-roll, surely that would be to the credit of the Minister. There had been no- control in the past, except rafferty rules, he alleged. He was sure the Minister would do his job without fear or favour for anyone. He was glad the Bill would put a stop to lorry drivers working long hours at night, and hoped it would also stop the carriage of sheep at night, as so much sheep stealing was taking place. He hoped drivers’ hours would be limited to nine hours a day and that they would be adequately paid. Effective Co-operation. Mr W. T. Lyon (Government—Waitemal,a) said Mr Coates based his opposition to the Bill on the assumption that the Bill would result in all forms of transport being completely subordinated to the railway service. He did not see how that could be deduced from the Bill. In New Zealand, continued Mr Lyon, railway construction had been allowed to become stultified. The Bill, he said, arrived at the closest co-ordination and the most effective co-operation, in order to get the best service possible. He wondered what would have happened had development of the country been left to private enterprise. He referred to the differing viewpoints of Opposition speakers, and asked whose statements were to be accepted as the official Opposition opinion.

He quoted the profit made by Government motor services, and said the total profit was £5672 and suggtstd that was a complete answer to the case that the Opposition built up that a Government service could not possibly pay. He refei’recl to the need for closer co-operation between the Railway and Transport Departments. Mr Lyon finished speaking just before 10.15. Mr S. G. Smith (Opposition—New Plymouth) rose to speak, but the Prime Minister said that if Mr Smith spoke it would knock the bottom out of the broadcasting arrangement. Mr Smith, therefore, moved the adjournment of the debate, which was agreed to.