MOTOR TRANSPORT

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLIII, Issue 20895, 26 November 1937, Page 6

MOTOR TRANSPORT

THE GOVERNMENT’S POLICY ENUNCIATION BY MINISTERS By Telegraph—Press Association WELLINGTON, November 25. Asking for a clearer statement than has so far been given of the policy the Government intends to pursue in the matter of the acquirement and regulation of road transport, a deputation representing the New Zealand Road Transport Alliance, the New Zealand Passenger Services Federation. New Zealand Motor Trade Federation, New Zealand Motor Body Builders Union of Employers, Nev/ Zealand Timber Merchants’ Federation. New Zealand Farmers’ Union, New Zealand Counties Association, New Zealand Manufacturers Federation and the Associated Chambers of Commerce, waited on the Prime Minister and the Hon. R. Semple to-day. These bodies submitted a resolution unanimously carried at a conference expressing concern at the Government’s increasing acquirement of private and transport undertakings in New Zealand. A similar resolution carried at the annual conference of the Associated Chambers of Commerce was also submitted. Deputation’s Case Mr M. G. McCaul, on behalf of the Chambers of Commerce,said that commercial life hinged on transport, but they appreciated the fact that some regulation of transport was necessary and inevitable. What concerned these represented by the deputation was the nature, extent, objectives, and effectiveness of the regulations imposed. They realised that the country had an asset in its railway system, but from the financial point of view the railways were also a serious liability. For that position the competition of road transport was only partly to blame. There was more to be laid at the door of uneconomic railway construction. The transport regulation policy had appeared to be one of tending towards the protection of the railways against the competition of road transport to an extent which to-day was causing concern. They admitted the rights of the railway as the central transport service.

Mr H. J. Knight, representing the New Zealand Road Transport Alliance and the New Zealand Passenger Service Federation, said they agreed that the reasonable control of the past was quite all right as was proved by the fact that passenger services were now largely complimentary of the railways. They felt that goods services would, if there had been no change, have reached a similar position. On behalf of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union Mr R. W. Bothamley said the union was opposed to single ownership of transport and viewed with great regret the elimination of the small operating units of the industry for these units gave an opportunity for great flexibility and mobility in rural areas. Ministers In Reply Mr Semple said that it had never been the Government’s intention to nationalise the transport system. The Government’s thoughts were engaged with those services in direct competition with the railways. Having spent £73,000,000 of public money on railways, it was not to be expected that the Government would allow private individuals to use roads built and maintained by the taxpayer to drive the railways out of business. The Government had to protect the railways and that was all there was to it. The Government was dealing as fairly as it could with the people concerned, and no Government in the world had been as fair in dealing with road transport services.

“We want the motor transport where it is needed,” said Mr Savage, “and we want the best form of transport. Then there is air transport. We have to take all forms of transport into consideration. We will never get perfection, but we will get as far as possible to it if we can work together. We want to see the motor serving the railways rather than running the railways to death and itself at uie same time. The Government did not want anyone’s service for nothing, but it did not want tc pay a first-class price for secondclass material. So far as humanly possible the existing services would be allowed to remain.”