TRANSPORT OF DOMINION

Southland Times, Issue 23310, 21 September 1937, Page 9

TRANSPORT OF DOMINION

SINGLE-OWNERSHIP PLAN REPLY TO MR MACKLEY In a letter published in The Dominion, Wellington, the General Manager of Railways, Mr G. H. Maekley, contributes what must be regarded as an official defence of the Governments policy of monopolizing internal transport in the hands of the Railway Department. It could reasonably be expected that, having abandoned the traditional poicy of official reticence, Mr Maekley would have explained specifically what the detailed intentions of the Government are concerning road motor transport, and also replied to the submissions made on behalf of the industry during the present controversy (says a statement issued by the New Zealand Road Transport Alliance). Mr Maekley has done neither of these things. His letter is quite irrelevant and evasive on the essential points at issue, and in no way clarifies or explains the policy to be pursued. It consists entirely of (a) an abusive and intolerant attack upon the newspaper concerned, and upon those who have been stating the case for the retention of the goods motor transport industry as at present conducted; (b) a defence of the staff of the Railway Department against charges that have not been preferred against them, and which are raised or *ly by Mr Maekley himself; and (c) quotations from a report relating to transport conditions in Queensland. The lengthy citations from tne Queensland report do not on analysis afford a jot of support to the Government’s policy of single ownership, socalled, in reality socialization of transport. In any case the matter at issue is the situation in New Zealand, and not in Queensland, and the record ot Queensland with State enterprises in recent years has been such that tne reference is decidedly unfortunate. “POLITICAL ABUSE” The inference is irresistible that in an official communication Mr Maekley, as responsible head of the Railway Department, would have stated in detail the proposed programme of his department in relation to road motor services, if such a programme had actually been worked out, and would nave replied to the case put forward on behalf of the road motor transport industry, had he been in a position to do so. Io talk peevishly of “the threadbare arguments of paid propagandists and politically biased newspapers is merely political abuse, and not constructive or informative criticism. The reasonable inference from what he says, and what he does not say, is that the Government either has no specific policy on road motor transport, or is unwilling to disclose it; also that the case put forward by the motor transport industry is above rational refutation. That competition leads to more acceptable and considerate economic service to the consumer is self-evident and cannot be denied. The intolerant diatribe that Mr Maekley J?wtches against the newspaper for stating this obvious truism is ample illustration ot the dictatorial mentality and impatience of criticism likely to be developed by bureaucratic monopoly, and is a taur indication of the angle from which motor transport will be regarded, by t Department of Railways once it has obtained effective, control of the internal transport situation.