LOCAL RAILWAYS.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 204, 2 October 1914, Page 6

LOCAL RAILWAYS.

AN IMPORTANT MEASURE OPPOSITION LEAD A SHARP ATTA€K. THE PRINCIPLE OF STATE OWNERSHIP. [From our own Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, October 1. The Local Railways Bill, which came lip for.its second reading in the House of Representatives last night, is an innocent looking measure in its proposals, but the Opposition appeared from the outset of a keen debate to see in its purpose to allow s local bodies to construct railways under ! special circumstances a dangerous.policy, opening the way to monopoly, and jeopardising the interests of the State. The Bill provides for the establishments of railway districts and of railway boards consisting of any number from five to nine members, as determined by the Governor, such boards to have, power, to construct local railways after authorisation. by an Order-in-Council. Provision is also made for the management of railways by these boards, and for purchase by the Government on'-payment of compensation to be fixed by" arbitration. A Workable Scheme. ~ The Hon. W.; Eraser, in moving the second reading,', said that one of the greatest defects in the Bill of last-year was that local bodies were left to choose the localities of local railways, local bodies were not elected for. this purpose, and, in some instances, would not be bothered to do their work properly. Under this bill railway districts could be constituted and railway 'boards could be set up to deal with the question} of a railway in its district. The board was to be constituted a local body and wo'uld first of all proceed to classify the land in its district. It was to have power to borrow money under the Local Bodies Loans Act, arid also ■to levy rates in the event of expenditure exceeding : .income*. The Bill gaye a power of purchase by the Governor, at twelve nicy*hs notice,'-of any local railWay, at a price to be determined by arbitration. .This was a most necessary provision. ' (Hear, hear.) No compensation in the event of purchase was to be paid for goodwill.. .; The Minister said he believed the measure to be a workable one, and one which would, do a great deal of good in the country. Groing To Do Harm. Sir Joseph Ward said he believed the Minister was sincere in his belief about the Bill, but, in his opinion, it was going to do a great deal of harm in this country. They had affirmed the principle of State-owned railways, an< i no country in the world which had done that had gone back to granting rights for ; privatelvrowned lines. First' of all, what was to be the size of the districts proposed under the'measure'? As far-as the Bill provided, there might be ahundred,such, districts in the Dominion. They, were going to. give to. the chairman of the Railwaj- Boai'd all the powers'of the Minister of Railways, in charge of the whole, of the Dominion's railways. The chairman was to receive £2OO a year arid the members "whatever the board might decide." They were going* to.give the board power to take private land and also powers which so far had never before J>eeii- allowed to any authority but the"',' Crown. drown Purchase. Sir Joseph went on to criticise very strongly, the? provisions of| purchase by the Crown. Bid the Minister believe the State- could purchase.a railway built linger this Bill at anything like the original cost? The shareholders of the; Manawatu railway received 50/- for their £1 shares in the company. He did grudge them.it. The' State made what'w ; as undoubtedly a fine purchase, but it • was a. delusion . to think that these local railways could be purchased ori terms which .'would be. satisfactory to the. people; .... Mr E. Newman: What do you"suggest better than arbitration? ; ■*'■•■->. Sir Joseph Ward: "I do not suggest arbitration. I have my own ideas what should be done. The truth is that we should provide the money to build these railways: They should be built and owned by the State, (Opposition Hear, hears:) We should not have a system of "funkers" in this country,' "flinkers'' who are afraid to take the responsibility for anything on their own shoulders. He hoped that not .many constituencies in the country'would'be deluded by this measure. He undertook- to say that "this was a Bill to help the large laud owner. It was to encourage monopoly. It was an insidious attempt to create a new system of railways which was going to act detrimentally in the interests of the people. Foreign Examples. They could easily see what, had happened in other countries. Theodore Eoosovelt, who ..was put into office by the big influential interests,-said that he must, change his mind, and sought office the second time workjjig for the users and not the owners of the railways. All the'influeneo of the big men was directed against him. Since that time the nationalisation of the American railways was favoured on every hand. In France and Switzerland, and, indeed, in every country where there were pri-vately-owned' railways, the tendency was for the State to'acquire them in the interests of the people. But under the system proposed in the Bill they were promoting high juices for the land near the new lines which would affect not only this generation, but future generations. It would be incomparably better, in his opinion, for the people of this country to pledge their credit still further, and say that the State should build the branch lines that were required. (Opposition applause.) There was no provision in the Bill to say that fares and freights on the private lines should be the same as on the State lines. Why, the very beauty of the State system was that it allowed the poor man to travel at a minimum of expense. But there was no safeguard in this respect

in the measure now before them. In his opinion it was'an iniquitous measure. Exaggerated. Mr E. Newman (Rangitikei) characterised the speech of the previousspeaker as exaggerated. (Laughter.) Au Opposition member: That settles itMr Newman continued that his idea of the Bill was that it was designed to defeat monopoly. Nothing could be more reasonable. The Bill would help settlers in the back country to get their railways if they were able to pay for them. The Leader of the Opposition had often told settlers that they could get railways if they paid for them. Sir J. G. Ward: Tell me when I said that. Mr Newman: I can't say just now, but I remember the statement. I shall endeavour to find it. (Loud Opposition laughter.) Sir J. G. Ward: I never said any such thing. Mr Newman went on to say that he represented a district where there was a very successful private railway. Mr 1). H, Guthrie (Oroua): Hear, hear. .'■■ ■ ; ■ > Sir J. G. Ward:-What railway is that?' Mr Newman: The Sandon-Foxton tramway, which is run by the County Council. Sir ,1. G. Ward: So successfully that it has been willing to sell its line to the State for many years. ' Mr Newman said that the line returned a very fair margin of profit. He was delighted that the Minister had introduced the Bill...which would be heartily welcomed by settlers in the country districts. - . What of the People. Mr AV. A. Veitch (Wanganui) said that the Bill would not operate in the interests of the people. Hon. A. Eraser: Yes, it will. \ Mr Veitch: I am making this speech, if you don't inind, Mr Speaker. The hoii. Minister will 'have the "right" of reply—if-he wishes; • (Laughtef). - Mr: Veitch said.the Minister did not know the : ,-principles of his. own Bill., He might think: he did, but a little later lie would find that he did riot.' When a scheme for the establishment of a railway was brought before the people of a district they would not be told anything about the stopping places or anything else. All they would know was that a line w-as proposed to be\built from such a place to such a place. The details would be fixed after the petition had been signed. -*. He had seen any amount of this kind of thing in connection with tramways. > , Private Ownership. He was entirely opposed to the ownership of railways by companies. An hon. member: That doesn't <?oine in here. Mr Veitch: The board has power to sell to a private company. Suppose a board sold a line, to a company, at £50,000, and the company subsequently sold to the Government for £IOO,OOO, what was going to be done with the profit! Would it go to the settlers along the line, or to tlie company which had made the profit? The position was that eonvpanys could easily exploit the settlers. Take, also, the case of. a railway which ran at a loss at tlie com : mencement, as was often the case. Under the Bill, if a line ran at a loss,, the expense would have to be borne by the settlers who were quite willing to be rated. Then, after a year or two, the line w.ould begin to pay as development followed the ljne, and the board might sell to a'company which would reap the profits "without ..having borne a penny of the loss. Such a policy was one which he did not 'wonder lion, members on the other, side of the House supported. Board Bidden. When the present Government came into pdwer one plank of its policy was that it ■.-would buy land ahead of railway construction. How could this be done under the present bill? New Zealand was a board-ridden country. There was a board for this and a board for that, and yet we were to have another board. An hon. member: Bored to death. (Laughter.) . Mr Veitch: The hon..member is quite correct. What AvaS the use of. having a State Railway Department if it did not control all'the lines in the country? Why should they have a general manager at £3OOO a year if he were not to have control, oyei' 'every.line? ri There was nothing in the Bill to safeguard, and ensure the employees or' the lives of the travelling public. This was a matter which-should surely be attended to. Mr AV. D. S. Mac Donald (Bay "of Plenty) continued the'debate, lie gave the measure a qualified support and suggested referred to a committee where it could receive careful consider 1 ation. At 2.5 a.m. the Minister of Public Works rose to reply. He said he was amazed at the criticism levelled against the Bill. He could only think members had 'not read the measure: There Was no power to sell or lease a private railway without the consent of the Government., The fact.,of the matter,was the arguments raised against the Bill were prompted by a knowledge that the Bill was going to be popular. A division was called for on these: coiid reading and was carried by. 27 to 12.