THE New Zealand Herald AMD DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 1930. THE RAILWAY INQUIRY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20593, 18 June 1930, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AMD DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 1930. THE RAILWAY INQUIRY.

The Commissioners who are to inquire into the financial position of the New Zealand railways have been given their order of reference. It does not suffer from lack of detail. Indeed, it might be thought that by the time the 19 specific questions had been answered, there was no aspect of the working railways that had been left untouched. This is not entirely so, as will appear later. Considering the actual text for the moment, the question is whether, by defining with so much prodigality of detail, it also limits, as definition generally does. The first objective placed before the commission is "to inquire and report as to the possibilities of increasing the revenue and decreasing the expenditure of the New Zealand railways." Exactly; that is what the public wishes to see happening. If the commission had been given no further instruction it would have had enough.- Yet immediately after this broad and comprehensive suggestion there follows a mass of detailed points concerning which most of the individual members have no practical knowledge, and upon which its views must needs be the reflection of staff evidence, or of the opinion of the one member who has recent firsthand experience of actual railway operation. According to the Prime I Minister the commission will not take evidence round the country, but will sit in> Wellington. What practical answer can it give to a number of the intricate technical questions put to it by working in this fashion? It must rely wholly on the testimony of experts, all of whom, in the nature of things, will be departmental experts. They may have valuable suggestions to make for more efficient working, but if a Royal Commission is necessary to obtain their views, then the railways must be run in a more peculiar way than anyone had imagined. The order of reference is far too long and intricate for complete and detailed review. Some points in it are important, and provided a considered and fearless finding on them is given, the result should be useful. Most notable among these is question 17, in which the commissioners are asked to say whether the abandonment of working, either wholly or in part, of any portion of the railway system would be justified. This alone would be subject enough for a complete inquiry in itself. It is improbable that the commission will be able to devote to it the time and care it demands, but it may feel disposed to say enough to bring into definite shape a question that has been developing for some time in the minds of all who have followed railway finance with any intelligent appreciation of detail. In contrast with this, questions 13 and 14 can be taken. Hie first asks whether the maximum benefit is being obtained from the new workshops in the four main centres, and whether the volume of work will be sufficient to keep them fully occupied. What opinion of any worth can the commission give on this sweeping question of engineering efficiency? Two members of the commission have had railway experience. Neither was a workshops man, neither is a locomotive engineer. How they, even more than their two colleagues, can be expected to advise the Government about workshop organisation and efficiency is a question only the framers of the order of reference can bo expected to answer. Tho same thing applies with equal force to the following paragraph, in which the commissioners arc asked to say whether locomotive transportation costs are down to the minimum consistent with tho maintenance of a proper margin of safety and efficiency in operation. They will be able to listen to the views of engineers on this subject, but will they be competent to make any comment of value. It is very doubtful.

If what the order of reference contains raises doubts about the inquiry, what of the questions it does not contain 1 The commission has been given two general instructions, one, already quoted, at the beginning, the other at the end, instructing it to "review the administration and financial position" of the department and to recommend steps "to secure the proper balance of economy, efficiency and satisfactory service." Can it find in the whole set of instructions encouragement to consider the removal of political influence from both the construction and operation of railways? That is gradually coming to be recognised as their greatest need. The Leader of the Opposition has just announced his advocacy of that policy, quoting Canada, Belgium and Germany as examples of its successful application. If the commission reaches this conclusion it will be interpreting its order generously. It is to be feared no such bold departure from the letter of the questions will be taken. Again, it has no direct encouragement to consider how much longer the policy of constructing new lines nnd handing them over for operation without consulting the department as to their possible value can continue without making a serious position worse. A few days ago the Prime Minister said the railway ad-

ministration, as such, was not on its trial. The policy with which it had been entrusted required overhauling so that Parliament and the country would understand its financial weaknesses and what could be done to remedy the loss now being thrown upon the taxpayer. The order of reference flatly contradicts his statement. Almost all the do tailed questions deal with administration and operation in their most technical aspects. The broader lines of policy can be reviewed only by straining the general instructions which open and close tho document. There was never much reason to feel enthusiasm for the commission idea. Now there is less than before the order of reference had been issued.