Farmer Criticises Policy of Railways

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 675, 29 May 1929, Page 9

Farmer Criticises Policy of Railways

MORE “PENAL RATES”

UNION STATES ITS CASE The recent comments of the Hon. W. B. Taverner, Minister of Railways, upon a resolution by the recent Farmers’ Conference, against the railways being "used for protective purposes in assisting industries by differential freight rates” have provoked a reply from the union.

The provincial secretary of the union, Mr. A. E. Robinson, writes as follows; In respect of continuity, the Farmers’ “Union has an advantage over Governments and there are still members on the Auckland executive .who will assure Mr. Taverner that the assertion that freight rates are “reduced” for local products came as an afterthought to one of his predecessors—a valuable after-thought, being one hard to disprove. For instance, when the objection was first lodged by the union against penalising imported timber, the first reply of the then Minister of Railways was that the increased rate had been imposed because imported timbers were “heavier than New Zealand timbers.” To the claim that this did not apply, among many timbers, to Oregon and cedar, the reply was that these timbers were “in greater lengths.” When fencing battens were instanced, these were a "special case.” The truth is that the best New Zealand rates for articles subject to differential railway freights are higher than in almost any country in the world. The union has been told that the imposition of extra freights on imports is common to most civilised countries. That is not true. Australia shares with New Zealand the distinction of penalising— necessarily at the expense of exports—imports alone. South Africa has a complicated system which helps exports a 3 well as penalising imports, but railway penalties against imports elsewhere are conspicuous by their absence. Some countries, such as Belgium, give railway concessions to important lines of goods for export, but generally speaking there is no distinction.

Mr. Taverner objects to the term “penal rates,” but what term can better describe the position? Taking timber as an illustration. Many lines are landed at New Zealand' ports at about three times the cost at the mill. Duty is imposed about equalling original mill cost. RAIL DISCRIMINATION That is not enough. Railway freight discrimination loads the timber with a 50 per cent, higher freight than that borne by the local timber. Surely such a rate is doubly penal—hitting both importing interests and inland dwellers. In face of this we complain of American duties on our butter, meat and wool. If the Minister’s view that a reduction is made in the case of local goods is correct, it is small wonder that the railways d.o not pay. For, in that case, all local timber, coal, esment, stock foods, with ai fearful list of manufactured goods, are being carried at rates sometimes only fractional to their true cost of transport.

Much is made of the free transport of lime and reduced freight for manure, but the argument for these is that they result in increased railwaj“ business through enhanced production. As a plain matter of fact, the costs are charged up to the Agricultural Department, probably resulting in that shortage of funds which causes that department to withhold for years the ’ settlement of admitted claims. Moreover, there have been rises in other freights affecting farmers, which have synchronised strangely with these boasted benefits. In the long run farmers have, directly or indirectly, to pay increased internal freight rates, and if rates on butter, cattle trucks and groceries are increased the benefits of low freights on manure are largely negatived. Taking a specific example, the alteration of money values since 1914 is rather more than one-third, but the present freight rates on butter, except Where motor or sea transport competes, are between two and three times the rates in 1914. Were the 1914 freights fair, the present rate is then much too high. ACCOUNTING CRITICISED The loss of income from lime and manures is charged up to the Agricultural Department. Should not the colossal losses on timber, coal, cement, reading material and manufactured goods, to which Mr. Taverner pleads guilty, be charged up to the Mines, ForestrJ', Industries and Commerce, and other departments concerned? This seems only reasonable and it would put the Railways in credit. The Minister of Railways has his best friend in the Farmers’ Union it he is honestly desirous of giving his own department a fair spin. Farmers, almost alone, recognise the iniquity of the present rating Bystem, with its necessary accessories of Government grants and subsidies, providing an almost free running track for those modern competitors of the railways, motor-cars and motor trucks. If the new Government will seriously consider the crass absurdity of expecting one mode of transport to pay full interest on all its charges, while another has had original capital of its running track, with much of its present overhead costs, provided, either through rates on State grants, that Government will earn the gratitude of farmers and will go down in history as at least one example of a Government .which knew what it was doing and had the courage of its convictions.

At present, judging from the composition of rhe new Transport Advisory Council, the Minister of Railway's real enemies appear to be those of his own household.