THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1932. THE TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21774, 13 October 1932, Page 8

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1932. THE TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT.

Among the recommendations of the National Expenditure Commission is one that the Transport Department should be. abolished. It is a recommendation which we are the more disposed to regard as thoroughly sound because it was never our opinion that the need had been shown for the creation of this particular department. The members of the Commission explicitly state that they see no necessity for the establishment of a separate administrative department to deal with the question of transport. Mr Ansell holds different views, which, he has been expressing at some length in Parliament. Apparently he considers that, so far from the country being able to get along quite well without a Transport Department, what it really needs is something in the nature of a supreme department of the kind to govern the whole of the. transport operations of the Dominion. His argument in support of this view is based on the desirability of bringing about improved methods of coordinating transport. The Commission apparently saw no inconsistency whatever in advising the abolition of the Transport Department while according recognition to the necessity for the control and co-ordination of all forms of transport. The inference must be that it regards the Transport Board as unimportant as a factor in securing such, co-ordination. It is i obvious that one of the most simple and effective ways, in which the Gov- , eminent may bring about the smaller administrative economies that 1 are

necessary consists in the elimination of superfluous departments and the assumption of their duties by other departments. Mr Ansell does.not suggest otherwise, but evidently regards the transport question as of such transcendent importance that not only should an exception be made in regard

to the department that was established in 1929,- but its administrative responsibilities should be greatly enlarged. He argues that at present local bodies, the Highways Board, the Public Works and Marine Departments, the Railways Board, the Transport Department and other organisations are all concerned,with a measure of transport control, and yet a situation exists as regards transport operations in the Dominion which demands the elimination of wasteful duplication. But if the idea of a supreme transport department comprising several existing departments were carried into practice, the functions of the departments in question that are not confined to transport would still presumably come under separate administration. 'There .seems a possibility of making confusion worse confounded in an'effort to simplify or concentrate control in such circumstances. In any case it is the position of the Transport Department as it exists and functions at the present time that is in question, and the relegation of its duties to the Public Works Department, as recommended by the National Expenditure Commission, would not deprive the country of services that could be rendered only through a separate administrative organisation. With all due deference to the authority with which Mr Ansell speaks on the question there is room for the suggestion that his views are likely to be influenced by the special interest which he takes in roads and highways —an interest that may add to the concern which he reasonably expresses over the number of small harbours in .the Dominion. He is exercised, too, over the danger of the deterioration of the roads of the country as a consequence of the transfer of revenue from the . Highways Fund to the Consolidated Fund, But the alternative to a raid of this kind is increased ( taxation, of which motorists would, of course, have to bear their share. The observations of the National Expenditure Commission respecting the ear-mark-ing of taxation for special purposes were certainly pertinent —and especially pertinent in present circumstances.