SYDNEY BRIDGE LINES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21859, 23 July 1934, Page 7

SYDNEY BRIDGE LINES

"WORST-PAYING RAILWAY" LOSING £157,000 A YEAR The New South Wales Minister of Transport, Mr. Bruxner, told a. deputation from the Motor-Van Owners' Association in Sydney recently that the dearest and worst-paying piece of railway line that the Government had was on the Sydney Harbour Bridge. It was losing £157,000 a year. The deputation sought the abolition of the road tax for house-to-house furniture removals. Household effects, it was contended, were not commercial goods, and should not be liable to the tax. Alternatively, the deputation asked that complete exemption for the first 50 miles on any journey should apply, and the weight of the goods only should be taxed. A reduction of the' harbour bridge toll to a minimum of 6d for an empty motor-van was also sought. The deputation also made a protest against the Bail way Department entering into competition with the furniture removalists. Mr. Bruxner said he could not make any promises, but would go fully into the matters placed before him. The Minister took exception to statements made by. members that the railway handling of furniture was not only slow, but "disgraceful." "You will not help your position by saying the whole railway system is rotten in the handling of furniture," said Mr. Bruxner. "You make vour ease very bad by misstatements. The carrying of furniture on the railways is a very lucrative business."

Later, the, Minister, addressing a member of the deputation, said: "1 am not going to be sniggered at in my office when you make such misstatements. T have seen a whole lot of mis-statements made by you in the press. I want to help these men and go into the questions with them, but I will not do so with you until you stop saying things which are not correct."

After further exchanges, the Minister said he did npt think that the Transport Act was driving vehicles off the road. If that was so, then something would have to be done to see that they were kept on the road -without interference with the railways. The Government was trying to make it possible for the Railway Commissioners to run the railways as a business concern. The Government would not stand for inefficiency in that service and make the people paj r for it. It was a healthy sign, said Mr. Bruxner, to see the Railway Department out for business. The number of passengers carried on the railways since the reduction in fares had shown a considerable increase. It was not the intention of the Government to make the service pay at the expense of anyone else.