A TRANSPORT QUESTION

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 77, Issue 196, 20 August 1934, Page 9

A TRANSPORT QUESTION

RAILWAYS v. WATER MR. VEITCH'S BILL POINTS OF INTEREST RAISED. The Transport Law Amendment Bill, introduced by Mr. AV. A. Veitch several days ago, unexpectedly came on for its second reading on Wednesday evening. Mr. Speaker ruled that the Bill affected the rights and prerogatives of the Crown, but by courtesy Mr. Veitch was permitted to move the second reading.

After discussing the point of order the member for Wanganui said: — Sir, —I do not know whether I would be justified in occupying much of the time of the House in discussing a Bill that seems to have no chance of reaching the Statute Book. It seems to me the House might be better occupied than in devoting itself to such a futile proceeding. However, I shall make a few observations in support of the measure. First of all, while unequivocally accepting your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on the point raised, the fact remains that the Railways Board, in its policy within the last twelve months, has entirely departed from the principles usually in the case of a Government Department. The very fact that you, Sir, have ruled that this measure interferes with the rights and prerogatives of the Crown is the soundest reason why this measure should become law, and I am going to appeal to the Government to take up the Bill and pass it as a Government measure. We have arrived at an amazing position. A Government Department adopts a policy which, in all respects, is similar to that of a great American trust. It uses its funds—indeed, it uses the people’s funds to carry on uneconomic transport business in destructive competition with its legitimate competitors, who have not the use of the public funds or tho protection of the Standing Orders of Parliament to prevent their charges and working conditions being altered. In other words, it would be quite possible within the Standing Orders for an honourable member to introduce a Bill, which would have the effect of giving the Railways Department power to cornplain of any charges made by a coastal service or by a harbour board, if those charges were considered by the Railways Department to be inimical to its business. Any honourable .member could introduce a measure of that kind, and it could be debated, after which, if a majority in the House approved of its provisions, it could be passed into law. Yet we find that a great public service, which has the public funds behind it for the purpose of carrying on its operations, is actually protected by the Standing Orders of Parliament against any possibility of a private member of Parliament introducing legislation to give protection to its opponents. It seems to me, Sir, that the ruling you have just given is the strongest argument conceivable in favour of what I am proposing in this Bill. If a Government enterprise is to have such protection that a private member may not introduce legislation to protect its competitors against unfair competition on the part of that Government enterprise, then surely the time has arrived when we should alter our Standing Orders so as to make the same principles apply to both sides, particularly as in this case the fight has become a life and death struggle. It is obvious to anyone who will look into the figures and analyse the facts that the coastal services cannot continue to serve the people in a number of cases if the aggression of the Railways Board is permitted to continue. As I said, when asking for leave to introduce this Bill, the matter goes a great deal further than merely considering the interests of those who hold shares in the coastal shipping services. But even that is a strong argument, for 1 say it is wrong that Parliament should permit public funds to be used for the destruction of a legitimate enterprise that has been established within the law and into which our citizens have invested their capital. Those coastal services are doing excellent work for the public which the Railway Department can never render, and if they are deprived of that portion of their business which the Railway Department is determined to take from them —unless Parliament takes a hand in the matter —they will not be able to continue at all, because the portion which will be left to them will not enable them to carry on The result would be that many of these coastal services, which are operating entirely within the law, would bo eliminated, greatly to the loss of the public which has invested money in them and to those to whom they are rendering services which cannot be rendered by any other service. The next point I wish to make is one which 1 overlooked when asking for leave to introduce this Bill, and which was referred to by tho honourable member for Christchurch South when he pointed out that New Zealand is destined to be a maritime country. Our Dominion consists of two separate islands, situated in the Southern Pacific, a long way from any other country, and if wo arc to develop our external trade we must become a maritime country. If tho aggression of the Railway Department is permitted to continue, and if we become involved in war with enemy vessels in our seas, the time would soon arrive when we should find that we have not sufficient trained sailors to man the mine-sweepers necessary to defend our coast. My Bill is in line with British law as it stands today, and one of the chief reasons why the British Parliament enacted legislation to protect coastal services against destructive competition from land services was that Britain is what New Zealand is destined to be—a maritime country —and Britain recognised that the defence of her coastline and the defence of her export trade would be prejudicially affected if her sailors were eliminated by the aggressive competition of railway companies and tbeir auxiliary services. The same reasons exist in New Zealand. The citizens of New Zealand must realise that a great deal of her future wealth, and possibly her safety, will depend very largely upon the development and the strengthening of her 2FC, SYDNEY. (451 Metres). ■5.45 p.m. Children’s session. 6.45: Recorded music session. 7.20: Sporting and news. 8.0: Studio Concert Programme.

coastal service, and the training to a j high qualification of the men em- i ployed in it. Is it worth while that' wo should take a groat national riskl simply to strengthen the accounts of l the Government Railway Department? Indeed, I am prepared to argue that the policy to which I refer will not ultimately strengthen the working railways account at all. But let us assume for the moment that it will —I ask whether it is worth while the cost of it that we should endanger the future development of New Zealand and her public safety. The Harbour Boards come into this matter in a very considerable degree. For a number of years there has been growing up a conflict—l will admit it is not a very serious one—between the minor ports of the Dominion and the major ports. Somehow j or other the belief has arisen in the minds of the members of some of the greater Harbour Boards that if they can only eliminate the smaller ports, or some of them, they will strengthen their own financial position, increasing the trade and wealth of their own commercial zones. Mr. Clinkard: They are quite mistaken. Mr. Veitch: I ain glad the hon. gentleman recognises that. It so happens that the Harbour Board associated with my electorate has been more directly hit than most of the other secondary ports. But the question is a national question, and reaches far beyond the precincts of Wanganui or the commercial zone of the Wanganui harbour. It affects every element in our population. As I have said, there has been a misunderstanding between the secondary ports and the four great harbours, and their four great centres —no doubt they have become great centres because they have great harbours. We ‘ have recently read correspondence in I the newspapers strongly advocating the elimination of the secondary ports altogether and the concentration of the business in these four great harbours. I am convinced that if the Railways Board is permitted to outline its present policy without, check, these secondary ports will bo so seriously hampered in their finances that the Harbour Board will have to levy rates, and very heavy rates indeed, not only upon the cities adjoining their harbours but upon the counties they serve for the purposes of sea transport. Mr. Polson: They are doing that already. Mr. Veitch: That is so. Now we come to the question of how the major ports will be affected if this new policy is permitted to develop to finality. It is true that if the coastal services can be eliminated more traffic will go over the rails into the central ports than goes into them now, but it is also a fact, and anyone who cares to take the trouble to analyse the accounts of the four big Harbour Boards can find it out for himself, that in the case of the Wellington harbour at least—an excellently managed and administered port, by the way—half the revenue is received from coastal services. I am speaking from memory, as I did not expect to have an opportunity of discussing this matter to-night: but I think I am correct in making that statement. We find, therefore that even the very large Harbour Boards will be detrimentally affected if the Government Railways Board is permitted to continue its present policy of desructive opposition. T submit, without raising the question of whether there should he a Railways Board or not, that the Government Railways Amendment Act, which gave to the Railways Board the powers it now exercises, did not give it the power to decide the great policy question of national transport, and as the board has not, that power under, the Railways Act I submit it is not entitled to adopt a policy which will have tho effect of completely changing, or at least very largely changing, the whole ' transport policy of New Zealand. flie question involves a great responsibility, which rests upon members of Parliament in making up*their minds on this point now. New Zealand is a young country which is now emerging into a new period of its development. I believe that- that period of progress and development is commencing now. and it will not be long before we have extended our spheres of operation far bevond the realms of primary production, is the question of transport. That question should be decided in every detail, so far as its policy is concerned, by Parliament itself, and no board, such as the Railways Board should be permitted to adopt a policy that will arbitrarily impose on the people a transport policy which may or may not be acceptable to Parliament itself or to the people whom Parliament represents. I express the opinion very confidently that, the present policy is not acceptable to the people, and therefore should not be accepted by the members of this Parliament. T do not propose to carry my portion of this discussion any further to-night. 1 have spoken purely from memory, but f think I have been able. to explain to honourable members with sufficient clearness to enable them to realise what I have in mind in introducing this measure. So far as your ruling is concerned, Sir. we accept it with all loyalty, as there is no doubt that what vou have stated is the position. But I do submit to the House that this question, the whole question of transport policy, requires to be most carefully analysed, considered, and acted upon by Parliament. One of the weaknesses of a democratic Parliamentary system, and nne which has been abundantly evident in the Parliament, of New Zealand dur-

ing the- past few years, is that, seeing that our minds have been concentrated upon the pressure of immediate difficulties, we have very largely failed to look into tho future and build up a transport system to be in operation in anticipation of what we know, or expect, will happen in the future. We find that all through our transport administration