CONTROL OF TRANSPORT

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19371, 8 July 1937, Page 5

CONTROL OF TRANSPORT

SINGLE-OWNERSHIP AIM

STATE POLICY CRITICISED

COSTS AND EFFICIENCY

(Special to tho Herald.) AUCKLAND, this day

“The reply by the Minister of Transport, the Hon. R. Semple, to the criticism of the Government’s singleownership policy of long-distance rail and road freight services must appeal as a pathetic attempt to justify the socialisation of this vital link in the national transport system,” said Mr. A. S. Bailey, the chairman of the New Zealand Road Transport Alliance, yesterday.

“It is clear that the arguments he uses and .the facts he outlines have a much closer relationship to hope than to practical application. It is interesting to have the acknowledgment of the Minister that the Government does not intend to take over the road services under discussion and suddenly cease operating them.

“It is more interesting to read that he recognises that these services have become grafted into the national transport system and that alterations to them will have repercussions in industry and trade. With this statement I am in agreement, and immediately ask why make an alteration? Assistance to Railways “Under a State monopoly we are promised a substantial increase in railway revenue with a comparatively small increase in expense, thus improving the railway finances and reducing the amount required from general taxation. If the whole of the revenue from these services was transferred to the railway, but this is clearly stated to be contrary to the Government intentions, the total revenue would be increased by approximately £300,000. The supposition that this increase would mean a large percentage of net profit is not borne out by past results.”

After referring to the railway operating earnings and costs and the earnings of the licensed services under discussion, Mr. Bailey continued: "What a sorry picture the Minister paints of the 197 vehicles operating over several thousands miles of roads in New Zealand, crowding out other transport and increasing the risk of personal accidents. It is clear, therefore, that instead of the result as stated by the Minister being a reduction in the national transport bill with a fully efficient service to the public, the single-ownership policy will mean a definite increase in the national transport bill with a less efficient service and that a Government monopoly of this interest can only mean that the public will pay dearly for this misguided incurslo* in the realm of State ownership.”