PARLIAMENT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, 16 October 1929, Page 5

PARLIAMENT.

THE RAILWAYS. The House of Representatives devoted yesterday to a comprehensive review of the Railways Statement and the relevant estimates. There were many speakers, and the debate lasted until a late hour. An important amendment to the Arms Act was introduced by the Minister of Defence (Hon. T. M. Wiiford), who led the House in the continued absence of the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph Ward). LATE SITTING. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, This Day. The House of Representatives, on concluding the debate on the Railways Statement, went into Committee of Supply at 2 o’clock this morning, to deal with the estimate for Working Railways Account (£6,655,479). Mr J. T. Hogan urged that some of the railway repair work should be given to the smaller workshops. The Hon. W. B. Taverner (Minister for Railways), said he would go into the matter during the recess, and where it was economically possible, such steps would be taken. Other matters of local interest were discussed. Then the vote was passed, and the House rose at 3.45 a.m.

FIREARMS RESTRICTIONS. Retention of those clauses dealing with automatic pistols and revolvers, and removal of the restrictions relating to other firearms, ammunition or explosives, are the main objects of the Arms Amendment Bill introduced into the House of Representatives yesterday by the Minister of Defence (Hon. T. At. Wiiford).

Under the new Bill, sporting guns and rifles will not require to be registered, and no permit will be required by farmers who desire to make use of explosives for lawful purposes. Persons holding licenses as dealers will be required to register sales, and will still require a permit to sell. The registration of sales by dealers will act as a check on the possession of rifles and sporting guns, but the holders of such rifles will not be required to go through the present round-about procedure in connection with registration as provided for in the Act as it stands. Automatic pistols and revolvers will still require to be registered. The Bill was read a first time.

COMPANY FLOTATIONS. A statement mndo at the Chambers of Commerce Conference in Auckland on Monday that a number of companies had been floated —more particularly in the North —which should never have been allowed by law, was mentioned in the House of Representatives yesterday. Mr W. E. Barnard (Labour, Napier) gave notice to ask the Prime Alinister whether his attention had been drawn to recent published statements made at the annual conference of the New Zealand Stock Exchanges, and also at a conference of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, emphasising the urgent need for amendment to the Companies Act so as to protect the investing public—and especially the .small investor — from wild-cat schemes and flotations, which constituted a trap for the unwary. If so, would the Government legislate so as to afford the public reasonable protection. FARMING AWARDS. Failure to obtain from the Government an intimation of its intentions regarding the renewal of the provisions of the Arbitration Act which prohibited the making of awards in farming industries except by mutual consent was commented upon by Air W. J. Poison (Independent, Stratford) in the House of Representatives yesterday.

Mr Poison stated that about four weeks ago he asked an urgent question of the Prime Minister in connection with the “industrial truce,” but had received no reply to it, although he had since approached Sir Joseph Ward on several occasions. The “truce,” according to the legislation, terminated on September 1 last. “Is that urgent?” queried Mr P. Fraser (Labour, Wellington Central).

Mr Poison said he 'desired to have a reply as to' whether further legislation would be brought down. He was instructed that the matter was one of urgency.

Hr Speaker suggested that Mr Poison should ask a further urgent question.

Mr Poison said he would follow that course.

The Minister in charge of the House (Hon. T. M. Wilford) said he would discuss the matter with the Prime Minister and obtain a reply for the member as soon as possible. “It would be wiser to leave it alone,” cautioned Mr D. G. Sullivan (Labour, Avon).

TRANSPORT. “The general policy Parliament should lay down in regard to transport is one of friendly co-ordination — a system of regulation of motor transport services that will enable them to give the very best possible facilities to the travelling public and the business community, and at the same time enable them to work in harmony with the Railway Department, each vieing with the other as to which can give the - best and most expeditious service. ”

This is the opinion of the Minister of Transport (Hon. W. A. Veitch), as expressed during the debate on the Railways Statement in the House of Representatives yesterday. The Minister said the transport problem was one w'hich affected piactically every feature of the activities of the people. Some had come to regard motor transport, on account of its effect on the railways, as a kind

of evil, but he questioned whether that narrow view should be taken of the situation. In his opinion transport services should not bo regarded by Parliament as a means of making a profit for anyone in particular. Parliament’s business in endeavouring to regulate and co-ordinate transport services was to develop the country and give to the people th© best, cheapest, and most expeditious transport that could bo provided by rail, or anything else.

“If the time had arrived —and it has not —when motor transport could completely supersede the railways, it would pay us to scrap the railways and bo done with the problem at once,” said the Alinister. “But that is not the position. There is ample room for rail and motor services. It is tho business of Parliament to provide the necessary legislation for the co-ordination of those services for the benefit of all the people. ”

RAILWAY SYSTEM. “Is it better to have the railways as a commercial or as a political system? In my opinion the future policy of the railways, definitely lies around those two points. I am of opinion that wo can commercialise still further. ’ ’ In those terms the Leader of the Opposition (Right Hon. J. G. Coates) crystallised his views on the immediate problem of railways management when opening the discussion on the Railways Statement in the House of Representatives yesterday. The question of the ultimate policy that ought to be followed for the conduct and general management of a great service was still “in the air,” said Mr Coates. The problem was whether the railways should be further “politicalised” or further commercialised. His view was that the progress of gradual commercialisation should be continued.

How that policy had been initiated and followed up by the Reform Government was shown by Mr Coates. The first step had been the separation of the railways accounts from the Treasury. Tho next step had been the provision of renewals, etc., from the railways accounts, which . was a perfectly sound and definite policy. Following that, there had been a complete overhaul and re-designing of the stores management —in a word, making stores cash. Train control and the provision of statistics, intelligently applied to show where increased costs wero taking place, were other directions in which the policy of commercialisation had been followed out. The results in the year under review showed .to some extent, the effect of those changes. The table in the Statement, giving statistics on the results of working, gave somewhat encouraging signs for the future. For instance, tho percentage of railway operating expenses to earnings had improved since the previous year.

Discussing the question of renewals, Mr Coates pointed out that since 1925 there had been paid from the railway account into the renewals account a total of £2,397,000, and at March 31 last there was a credit balance in the renewals account of £l,321,000. Mr Coates also pointed out that the Government proposed to write off £5,000,000 in the capital account, ■which would amount to an advantage of about £400,000 to the Department this year. From 1926 to 1929 the interest schedule had increased from £1,900,000 to £2,331,000. The great bulk of the interest charges constituted interest on loan moneys for constructing new lines. If the Railway Account had not been separated from the Treasury, the deficits would not have been nearly so apparent.