STATE CONTROL OF TRANSPORT

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLIII, Issue 20838, 21 September 1937, Page 4

STATE CONTROL OF TRANSPORT

REPLY TO RAILWAY AUTHORITIES HINT OF MONOPOLISTIC POLICY WELLINGTON, September 20. In a letter recently published in the newspapers, the general manager ot Railways, Mr G. H. Mackley, contributes what must be regarded as an official defence of the Government’s policy of monopolising internal transport in the hands cf the Railway Department, says a statement by the New Zealand Road Transport Alliance (Inc.). “It could reasonably be expected that,’“having abandoned the traditional policy of official reticence, Mr Mackley would have explained specifically what the detailed intentions of the Government are in regard to road motor transport, and also replied to the submissions made on behalf of the industry during the present controversy. Evasive Replies “Mr Mackley has done neither of these things. His letter is quite irrelevant and evasive as regards 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 in respect of charges that have not been preferred against them, and which are raised only by Mr Mackley himself, and (c) quotations from a report relating to transport conditions in Queensland. The lengthy citations from the Queensland report do not on analysis, afford a jot of support' to the Government’s policy of single ownership, so-called, in reality socialisation of transport. In any case the matter at issue is the situation in New Zealand, and not in Queensland, and the record of Queensland with State enterprises in recent years has been such that the reference is decidedly unfortunate. Railway Department's Policy “The inference is irresistible that in an official communication Mr Mackley, as responsible head of the Railway Department, would have stated in detail the proposed programme of his Department In regard to road motor services, if such a programme had actually been worked out; and would have replied to the case put forword on behalf of the road motor transport industry, had he been in a position to do so. To talk peevishly of “the threadbare arguments of paid propagandists and politically biassed 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 in regard to 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 Mackley launches against the newspaper fcr stating this obvious truism is ample • illustration of the dictatorial mentality and Impatience of criticism likely to be developed by bureaucratic monopoly, and is a fair indication of the angle from which motor transport will be regarded by the department of Railways once it has obtained effective control of the internal transport situation.