TRANSPORT CONTROL

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXI, 11 September 1937, Page 11

TRANSPORT CONTROL

GOVERNMENT’S POLICY COMMENT ON STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER Following is a statement by the New Zealand Road Transport Alliance in regard to those made by the Right Hon. the Prime Minister recently: — In the course of a recent statement to a deputation on the transport question, the Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. M. J. Savage, is reported as saying that "possibly, much sooner than you think, our petrol supplies may be cut off"; and he inferentially employed this alarmist statement as an argument in favour of the Government's policy of monopolising internal transport, and concentrating it in the hands of the Railway Department. Pressed later as to the real significance of this disturbing utterance, Mr Savage disclaimed possession of inside information that would indicate the imminent danger of our being involved in war, and stated that he was just Liking in general terms of the international situation. The fact that the Prime Minister had to draw the red herring of a war scare across the controversy on the transport problem shows plainly how bankrupt the Government is of constructive arguments in favour of its single-ownership policy in internal transport. As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister’s statement is open to dispute on fact, and irrelevant to the issue altogether. At the present time there is no greater apparent probability of our being involved in war than there lias been for some years past; neither is there any reason to apprehend that, if a war did break out in which the British Empire became involved, vve should be cut off from petrol supplies. The last war continued for almost four years, and we were not cut off from oil supplies.

Even if war were to break out. we should in no probable circumstances be at war with the United States, and our petrol supplies would be threatened only in the unlikely event of the British and United States navies losing command in the Pacific Ocean and our adjacent seas. It is obvious that no probable combination of hostile forces could ellect this. The suggestion is simply farcical. In any case, in the event of hostile forces threatening Hew Zealand, it is almost certain that attempts would be made to destroy from the air our railway bridges, tunnels and terminals: so that the necessity for an internal transport, service' apart fron. the railways would be greater and not less in proportion to the danger of hostile invasion. In other words, the appropriate transport policy as a measure of national military precaution is the exact opposite of what the Prime Minister asserts it to be. If we were ever in such a desperate situation as to be cut off from petrol imports, then we should also be cut off from other necessary commodities that a** imported at the present time. This obviously would include materials and equipment essential for the effective operation of the railways and other important forms of transport and communication. If the Prime Minister’s reasoning is correct, then we should, to be consistent, and safe, also make ourselves indeoendent of the import of all essential imports whatsoever, as an insurance against a possible but highly improbable blockade in time of war. a policy both impracticable and absurd ‘‘For our defence.” says the Prime Minister, “we cannot let the railways rust.” The imnlied suggestion that, if the Government refrains from commandeering the goods motor transport business, the railways will rust, is too ridiculous to merit refutation.