WAR ON MOTORS.

Otago Witness, Issue 3864, 3 April 1928, Page 71

WAR ON MOTORS.

SYDNEY, March 22. In Australia the offensive against motors which run in direct competition with the railway services is developing—in some instances along novel Tines. In New South Wales the railwaymen are talking of boycotting those firms who utilise motors instead of the railways, and in South Australia, under the operations of a Government board, the fares which motor services mnst charge have been so increased as to make competition with the Stat© railways almost impossible.

The boycott proposal had been simmering for some time among the railwaymen who have feared that the New South Wales Government would be compelled to retrench, just as Victoria and South Australia have done, unless the railways gave a better return. Now it is stated that a meeting of railwaymen will be called to consider the position. The railwaymen assert that the existing competition is unfair, because the motors carried only “A ” grade goods while the railways were carrying at a loss fruit, fodder, store stock, and other traffic which affected the farmer. The men are said to be determined to push this competition out by refusing to patronise those business houses which make use of the motor services in preference to the railways. The alternative is for the railwaymen to establish their own co-operative society. Either action would be a serious matter for country business people, especially in those centres where there is a large railway population. The Minister of Railwavs has deprecated talk of boycott. The competition was of such magnitude, he said, that if the whole service rose against it it would not be able to overcome it. It was the Government’s duty to see that the economic position was dealt with, and that the unfair competition was eliminated. The Government was not going to stand idly by. It was not going to build concrete and other roads and hand them over to motor transport companies for the paltry taxes now collected. In meeting the competition the railwaymen had to do their share —to give of their best. While the policy of New South Wales is apparently undecided South Australia is working along definite lines, and is dealing first with passenger competition. With this object in view it set up a Motor Transport Board, and tb© board’s plan, simplicity itself, is bound to arouse interest in New Zealand. Briefly, the board has compelled the proprietors of motor service© to increase fares to such an extept that people will be driven to travel by train. All services, whether running in direct competition with the -IU-.mvs or not, are affected, in some cases to such an extent that the services tia.2 aneady ceased. Th© Act under which the board operates provides for the payment of compensation to any service which the board abolished. On this point the secretary of the All Routes Motor Service said: “ Il seems to us that the Government is attempting to' run us off the road without the necessity of having to pay us compensation.” The extent to which the board has gone is best illustrated by quot ing some of the new motor fares and comparing them with the railway charges. The railway fare from Adelaide to Port Pirie is 25s 6d and the motor services are being compelled to charge 34s 9d. The railway fare to Port Augusta is 39s 3d, and the cars are being compelled to charge 51s. In the past the motor services have granted reductions for return fares, but under the new order-This will not be permitted. In the case of many of the services this makes the discrepancy between the fares imposed by the board and those charged by the railways even mor© marked. As an example of this, the return fare charged by motor services be tween certain towns prior, to th© new regulations was £3, but the fare for the same run is now £5 2s. Needless to say, the motor people are protesting, but their protest will fall on deaf ears, for the Government bas announced over and'over again its determination to protect the railways.