THE BUDGET

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23699, 4 July 1940, Page 12

THE BUDGET

Sir, —It is dreadful that at this crisis in world affairs, when our freedom and our very existence are so seriously threatened, and when all attentions should bo devoted to the promotion of defence measures to meet the inevitable invasion, work and money are lavished on public works none of which is essential and most are in themselves undesirable.

In Auckland two huge and unnecessary buildings are to be erected, absorbing much labour and consuming vast quantities of steel needed for defensive purposes. What about supplying the people with shelters and refuges as in England? What about the manufacture of "tin hats," rifles and other military equipment? Then there are three frightfully expensive and worse than useless railways, a great tunnel costing a million of" money to accommodate a present traffic of 450 persons per annum, another West Coast harbour and the irrigation of Canterbury—as though the example of such work in Otago were not sufficient.

As a sample of the lot, let us review in the briefest manner one of these deadly undertakings—the socalled South Island Main Trunk _ railway. In 1882 a commission consisting of James Fulton, M.P., Hon. David Pollen, M.L.C., and J. T. Thomson set out the essentials of a worth-while railway and said: "It is our duty to report that we have not found any of these conditions actually existing or likely to exist." In 1925 the Fay-Casey report estimated possiblo traffic at one and a-half trains each way per day and stated that at least 11 trains each way would bo necessary to enable the railway to pay its way. In 1929 Mr. F. J. Jones, of the Railway Department, reported that the line must earn three to four times as much per mile as the Lyttelton-Bluff section (through good and well-settled country and connecting two _ largo centres of population), to make it pay. He estimated the annual loss at £140,000. In 1931 the Railway Board, after a most painstaking inspection and full report, stated that the railway, if persisted in, would add at least £IOO.OOO (and probably a great deal more) to the annual loss on our railways.

The main facts upon which these damnatory verdicts were based are:— (1) Through freights would cost 100 per cent more than by existing facilities: local freights would be very small, the country being rough pastoral runs with freezing works already established at Picton; passenger fares Would be 50 per cent highcr."(ii) The'journey would oe more uncomfortable and the time taken considerably greater. . (3) The cost of tlifs line would be £36,275 per mile, and on such a figure only a densely-populated country could yield a payable return. (4) The line would nave to meet fatal competition,-by sea and by road. Another factor is the dangerous character of the country— Shifting. sand and sliding hills, i Yet. in face of all these reports and all the facts of the case, our Government persists in squandering millions upon tliis worse than useless railway and will spend millions more in "working" it in future years. For such undertakings the last penny is wrung from the taxpayer, and thousands of men are put to work instead of labouring for our national salvation. E. Eatii.e Vaii/e.