NAPIER-GISBORNE LIE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIX, 30 January 1936, Page 5

NAPIER-GISBORNE LIE

RAILWAY BOARD’S OFFER TO LATE GOVERNMENT

BAN ON ALL ROAD SERVICES

STATEMENT BY MR FORBES

[By Telegraph—Press Association]

CHRISTCHURCH, 29th January

“The offer of the Railway Board to withdraw its objection to the completion of the Napier-Gisborne line was made to the Coalition Government only on the condition that all district traffic was secured for the line,” the former Prime Minister, the Rt. lion. G. W. Forbes, said to-day, commenting on a report from Wellington that a secret and favourable report from the hoard to the previous Government had now been revealed. The position was under consideration when the general election was held. No decision had then been reached, and no public announcement had been made about, the board’s recommendation.

This e.vidition imposed by the board would have meant driving from the road all motor services at present operating, Mj- Forbes said. He could not recall any recommendation which the board had made about the South Island Main Trunk line. “From what I remember, the hoard offered to withdraw its objection to the completion of the Napier-Gisborne line if the whole of the district traffic was secured for the line,” said Mr Forbes. “This would have required a good deal of legislation, and, in fact, would have meant legislating off the road those persons who were already running motor services. There would have been a different complexion on the matter if the motor services had not been established before the advent of the. railway, hut they were in active operation, and legislation which would have the effect of driving them altogether from the road would liautraiiy have required most careful consideration, and no public announcement had been made about the board’s recommendation.’’

THE WELLINGTON REPORT The report from Wellington on which Mr Forbes commented read: “One of ilie earliest results of the change of Government was ail assurance to the Napier and Gisborne districts that their abandoned railway would be completed and operated by the State. According to Ministerial statements, if the Railways "Board made objections it would not be allowed to stand in the way. In fact, the Hon. R. Semple used the novel metaphor of running shoes being required for ils members.

“Until the existing legislation is amended, as will undoubtedly be the case during the coming session, the Railways Board has sole decision in the matter unless its recommendation that railway construction be stopped is reversed by"resolutions of both branches of the legislature. In the light of tins position, a- surprising fact lias been revealed. Prior to the general election the former Coalition Government was in possession of a report from the Railways Board recommending completion of the NapierGisborne hue. No public announcement was made of this complete change of front by the hoard, which had previously reported in no uncertain way that the line would not pay operating expenses. What influenced the former Government to maintain reticence on tins important question? The reason, as far as can be ascertained, is that there was a qualification attached .to tlic board’s recommendation to the effect that its approval was contingent on legislation being passed giving tlie new railway statutory rights to a large proportion of the traffic over the route. This involved a change in transport policy, and the only indication of the former Government's activity in this connection was its promise that the transport system would be investigated with a view to securing further co-ordination. “One oi the first acts of the new Minister of Transport was to .arrange tor a general conference of transport interests as preliminary to legislation on the question. This morning he is meeting a number of the State department heads concerned to discuss Uiture lines of action. There is no doubt that the present Government will adopt a policy to protect developmental railways against other forms of transport competition. Therefore the Railways Board s attitude in relation to the Napier-Gis-borne line practically squares with that of the Labour Ministry. . , “There lias been a suggestion Inat the Railways Board is equally favourable to the completion of the South Island main trunk oil the same-terms, tnougn tins report has not been so easily capable of confirmation relating iu Hie 'Gisborne railway.”