THE RAILWAYS

Southland Times, Issue 21220, 22 October 1930, Page 6

THE RAILWAYS

BEPORTS DISCUSSED

SERIOUS CONSTRUCTION POSITION

ATTITUDE OF MB JONES-

(From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) Wellington, October 21.

A letter from the committee on railway Construction in New Zealand which was presented to the acting-Prime Minister (the Hon. E. A. Ransom) to-day and which is reported elsewhere, was referred to in the House of Representatives this afternoon by Mr D. Jones (R., Mid-Canterbury) who dealt with the railway construction policy of the Government.

In his speech on the reports of the committee and Royal Commission on the railways, Mr Jones was ruled out of order for referring to a minority report, but made it clear that those who had prepared the report had been in favour of closing down some of the railways under construction. Mr E. J. Howard (L., Christchurch South) who followed Mr Jones in the debate, objected to the attitude taken up by Mr Jones on the ground that it would put a large number of men out of work. Mr Jonea expressed disappointment that the Minister had not dealt more fully with the commission’s report instead of making a number of excuses and indicating strongly that he was at variance with the recommendations. The House, claimed Mr Jones, had the right to the evidence on which the report had been compiled so that it could get a complete view of the situation. The Minister had indicated that the bulk of the commission’s findings were to be jettisoned by Cabinet, for instance, that concerning depoliticalization. Main Point of Criticism. Mr Jones’s main point of criticism, however, was that the Minister had dealt only with trivial things and had not made a railway speech but a political one. The Minister of Health (the Hon. A. J. Stallworthy): What’s yours going to be? • After Mr Veitch’s speech, continued Mr Jones, he was more than ever convinced of the need for depoliticalization. Regarding the" attempt to throw the cost of maintenance of bridges on to local bodies, Mr Jones said that this was one more attempt by the Government to push the burden on to the ratepayer. The Minister had been asked to express his policy in a nutshell. He had done so when he stated that he wished to change the railways from an incubus to an impetus. It was an admission that at present the railways in the Minister’s opinion were an incubus. Mr Jones expressed regret that the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that the two reports on the railways should be taken separately had not been acceded to. There was a minority report from the Select Committee which would have been presented if standing orders had permitted. A member: Reform members’ report. Mr Jones: les, Reform members.

He continued that he had sent the report in the form of a letter to the acting-Prime Minister. He was proceeding to discuss the minority report when he was ruled out of order.

Mr Coates rose to protest, but was ruled out, too, so that Mr Jones had to discuss generally the work of the Select Committee. He said that the Reform members of the committee had moved a motion in committee and he wished to give the grounds for the motion which was defeated. In the Public Works statement the Minister of Public Works had indicated the serious position regarding railway construction in the Dominion and the heavy commitments the Government would have to meet. The seriousness of the cost of non-producing lines was also emphasized in committee and if there had been less delay in setting up the committee and appointing a chairman, there would have been more evidence taken and the committee would have been able to report. The whole facts concerning railways in New Zealand were given to the Royal Commission and, to the committee and the question in the minds of the committee members was whether it was justifiable to expend money in proceeding with lines that were under construction in the Dominion and which it was estimated would not pay. The sum of £120,000 a month was already being spent on construction work in the Dominion. Mr Jones’ held that it was possible to come to a decision on the lines under review on the facts before the committee for they were overwhelmingly .against continuation of the lines specified. After hearing the evidence he and Messrs Waite and Macmillan had moved unsuccessfully that work on the Main Trunk lines should cease. It had been shown by the accountant for the railways who had gained information from the heads of other departments, that the annual estimated loss on the lines when completed would be £737,000. In this estimate the best engineering brains of the Railway Department co-operated. However, in the -estimate of loss no account was taken of the loss in interest over the period of construction and the cost of the rolling stock. This might make the estimated loss 30 per cent, or 50 per cent, higher. Uncompleted Midland Section. Mr Jones gave details of the uncompleted section of the Midland line and of operations b&tween Nelson and Kawatiri. He said that the hue would ultimately lose £92,000 a year. This district, he held, could be as cheaply and as efficiently served by a subsidized motor service. The interest charges on the New Zealand railways last year were £2,132,000 and the deficiency on operations £1,211,000, so that the Department was getting into a dangerous state. If further money was raised to be put into uneconomic ventures New Zealand would be seriously embarrassed on the London money market. To make up the deficiencies on the lines money would have to be taken from the taxpayers’ pockets. Mr Jones questioned the wisdom of going in for uneconomic lines when it had been intended some time ago, but for the action of the community, io close the Methven-Rakaia line which ran through the best wheatgrowing district for its area , in New Zealand. He held that it was foolish to place unemployed on unreproductive railway works. This policy was not worth while. Mr Howard said that he had been a member oz the Select Committee which had investigated lines under construction and ho claimed that the committee had had a wider order of reference than the Railway Commission which had sat for weeks while the committee was expected to deal with the subject in a few hours, so to speak. It was absurd to think that the committee could do the work in the time. He was no superman and he did not think, from his knowledge of him, that Mr Jones was either. Yet Mr Jones, after that short deliberation, had held that he would displace 1700 men willy nilly. Mr Howard was one of those who said that the committee had not had time to consider the question. There was not enough time for the committee to gather sufficient data on any of the points on which it was asked to report. Regarding the commission’s report, Mr Howard said that this was a very disappointing document. It appeared to be an old man’s report drawn up by men who had lost hope. He went on to urge upon the Minister to make use of Diesel electric engines which had proved themselves so well on Canadian railways. These would help to make profits and reduce the costs of operations. DE BATE ADJOUKNED FURTHER OPINIONS EXPRESSED. MR HOWARD’S AMENDMENT. (Abridged from Press Association Message.) Wellington, October 21. Mr Howard contended that so long as the railways belonged to the people of New,

Zealand they would have to be under some sort of political control. He moved as an amendment that it should be a recommendation to the Government to proceed at once with preparations of legislation covering the co-ordination and control of existing transport services and that freight rates, fares and working conditions should not be altered without consulting Parliament. Mr C. E. Macmillan' (R., Tauranga) complained that the findings of the commission were not logical. When the commission expected that there would be an increase in revenue as the result of increasing freight rates and fares, it was failing to take info consideration the factor - of competition. Mr W. J. Jordan (L., Manukau) agreed with Mr Howard that the select committee had not had time to deal with the order of reference.. There had been some points that had not even been touched, lie contended that if the committee was to be guided simply by departmental reports it might just as well have had reports to the Minister for him to sum up the position. He criticized the recommendation of the commission, that fares and freight rates should be increased as a means of attracting additional business to the railways and he suggested that the proposal to increase the prices of school children’s season tickets would not appeal to the ratepayers. The House adjourned at 5.30 and resumed at 7.30. Providing Other Labour Channels. Mr F. Waite (R., Clutha) supported the contention that the three lines mentioned in the letter to Mr Ransom should not be completed. The question had been asked what could be done with the men who would be thrown out of work if construction were brought to an end. He suggested that they might be employed on other lines, on road construction or in land development. Even if this were not possible it would be better to give the money to the men rather than to spend it on projects which would result in recurring losses. The leader of the Labour Party (Mr 11. E. Holland) supported the amendment dealing with lines under construction. He contended that no one could logically condemn the policy of linking up Main Trunk lines. Mr Holland then referred to the Royal Commission’s report. He said that one of the first things to be done to combat the drop in railway revenue was to co-ordinate transport services. It seemed to be absolutely the opposite of wisdom to increase the charges in the face of the falling market. Decreased fares would, in his opinion, produce greater revenue. What was wanted was not so much an increase in rates as an increase in the number of people travelling. An increase in freights on primary produce was also undesirable because if it did result in the increase of £12,000 in revenue that £12,000 would be added to the cost of the produce to the consumer. The effect of freight increases generally would also be to add to the costs oi the consumer and to place a handicap on exportable produce. Mr Holland asked the Minister to give an assurance that after the rising of the House no attempt would be made to cut into the wages and conditions of men in the railway service. In conclusion he asked how it could be possible to have non-political control ,of the railways for which annual appropriations of public money had to be made. Mr Speaker drew attention to the fact that the amendment moved by Mr Howard was somewhat ambiguous. He asked Mr Howard whether the second part of the amendment dealing with freight rates, etc., was intended to be regarded as part of the recommendation to the Government. Mr Howard replied that this was so and the phrasing of the amendment was thereu -on altered to make this clear. ‘Mr W. J. Polson (1., Stratford) said he did not think that the increased charges amounted to the most important aspect of the commission’s report. The main question was whether the railways should be placed under business control. The Minister should have made a much more definite statement as to what was Cabinet s policy in this respect. Mr E. F. Healy (U., Wairau) defended the advisability of completing the South Island Main Trunk railway which, he said, would place thousands of people on the land in the locality. Speech by Mr Coates. Mr Coates said that anyone who had studied the Commission’s report must have been impressed by the expert manner in which it had been prepared. It served once again to emphasize the very serious position into which this country was getting as the result of expenditure on railways. He thought that all the recommendations demanded consideration and decision on the part of the Government. The most important recommendation was that control of the Department should be handed over to a board of directors. He agreed with this recommendation and he believed that the General-Manager of Railways should be chairman of the board. Control should ’be handed over to competent men who had the country’s interests at heart, and who would also give the system, a fair opportunity of success. Everyone must know what a wearying task it was for the Minister to have to face a continual stream of demands for concessions in the way of freight reductions, stopping places, etc. He urged the Government to give urgent consideration to the proposal relating to control and if necessary to call Parliament together, say a month hence, to pass legislation providing for such a change. Referring to the other recommendations Mr Coates said he thought that if workers’ concession tickets were increased in price to any extent it would probably result in the workers travelling by buses. It was only natural that people should elect to travel by the cheapest route. Mr Coates again appealed to the Government to hesitate before spending lavishly on railway construction. He contended that no work should be undertaken before very full investigation was made. The utmost caution should be used. Mr Coates moved that Mr Howard's amendment should be further amended by the omission of the latter portion (dealing with freight rates, fares and conditions) and by the substitution of a recommendation to the Government that in view of the incontrovertible expert evidence tended to the committee as to the serious financial losses involved in operating the undermentioned lines when completed, all construction work on such lines should be immediately stopped pending further inquiry. The lines mentioned were Gisborne-Waiko-kopu, Wharanui-Parnassus and KawatiriInangahua. The amendment was seconded by Mr A. E. Ansell (R., Chalmers), who supported the views expressed by Mr Coates. Mr H. T. Armstrong (L., Christchurch East), urged that railways workers’ conditions which at present were fairly hard, should not suffer in the interests of economy.

The Hon. H. Atmore said that he regarded the Commission’s report as disappointing. For instance the recommendation to reduce the concession to school children was not a sound one. He contended that children would still have to be given facilities and it would simply mean that the cost would have to be transferred from the Railway to the Education Department. It would be a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Parliament would be making a mistake if it committed the railways to bear the. cost of an expensive board of directors who would still have to come to Parliament for finance.

Mr W. D. Lysnar (R., Gisborne), complained of the somersaulting attitude of the Reform Party in regard to railway construction. He contended that it was adopted for party purposes. The debate was interrupted by the rising of the House at midnight till 2.30 p.m. to-morrow. , MAIN LINE CONSTRUCTION IMMEDIATE URGENCY FOR STOPPAGE •OPINION OF REFORM MEMBERS. Wellington, October 21. Contending that the Select Committee appointed to consider railway lines under

construction had heard the evidence of departmental officers who had all the information upon which the decision to construct railways had been based and had also information supplied on the possible development of land settlement in the areas proposed to be served, and an extended report by the Transport Department comparing different methods and costs, Messrs D. Jones, C. E. Macmillan and F. Waite, the Reform members of the committee, in a letter to the acting-Prime Minister and to the Press, express the opinion that the evidence was sufficient to answer the questions set out in the order of reference and enclose their findings on the evidence. They state that in their opinion the evidence clearly and conclusively demonstrated the immediate urgency of stopping construction on three sections, namely the Gisborne-Waikokopu, WharanuivParnassus (known as the South Island Main Trunk line) and the Kawatiri-Inangahua (known as the Midland line). Neither on financial grounds nor on the ground of development or land settlement, nor on any other ground could justification be found for spending further moneys on these sections. As to the remaining lines, some of which were on the point of completion, different considerations applied and pertinent facts were available to enable the Government to make a decision.

The letter deals with the order of reference at length. Referring to land settlement and probable development in districts which would be served by the continuation of such railways, it says that there is not sufficient to justify the proposed expenditure of money on the lines unless near completion. Many of the districts were already well served by other forms of transport. The convenience of the public was already well catered for. The effect on the finances of operating railways would amount to accentuating the present heavy burden and must be to embarrass seriously the financial position of the Dominion. Referring to the item “unemployment relief” in the order of reference, the letter states: The solution of the unemployment problem lies in getting men back into productive industries. Completion of the railway lines cannot be included in this term.”