TRANSPORT SYSTEM

Waikato Times, Volume 121, Issue 20246, 15 July 1937, Page 2

TRANSPORT SYSTEM

- STATE ACQUISITION. roundly condemned. REPLY TO MINISTER. (Special to Times). WELLINGTON, Thursday. The statement by the Minister of Transport in defence of the 'Government’s 80-oalled “single ownership’’ plan for the expropriation of goods motor services, released a few’ days ago, is not caloulafed to allay the growing public uneasiness in regard to the contemplated monopolisation by the State of the business of internal transport (states the New Zealand Road Transport Alllanoe). The Minister, while referring to the need for transport co-ordination, pays it lip service only. His proposals make no real, provision for co-ordina-tion, but on the contrary, if carried out, would destroy such measure of 00-ordinatlfin as exists. Expropriation of road motor services w’hich have grown up to meet a real and growing public demand, for the purpose of bolstering up the railway accounts (a futile effort at best), Is destruction and not co-ordination. Co-ordination Implies the binding into one unified whole of various types of transport in the public interest, and not the elimination of certain types for the protection of others less adapted to meet public requirements. Co-ordination Question. That co-ordination of transport services is required Is generally admitted. The statement, however, says that the Government is convinced that coordination cannot be effected as long as the road freight services are run as small units wholly independent of the railways. This is a pure illusion. The possibilities of 00-ordinatlon have little or nothing to do with the private organisation of the road motor services. It is feasible to secure an effective measure of co-ordination of road and railway transport without interfering with the organisation of the road transport industry. It is obvious from the statement itself that co-ordination is not the aim of the Government's policy at all. The real objeot Is elimination of competition with the railways. Engaged as it is in a policy of active construction of further non-payable lines of railway, the Government is obviously attempting by the use of the bureaucratic bludgeon of expropriation, to obtain for the railways business that they are unable to secure In fair and free competition on their own merits, beoause of the superior convenience of the road transport services.

In one place the Minister says the railway service can deal efficiently with 90 per cent of the business of the road transport services. If this is so, why have- the railways not secured a proportion of this business already? The statement is unsupported by a shadow' of evidence, and is proved incorrect by the admitted facts of the transport situation itself. If however, it were correct, the obvious inference is that DO per cent of present road transport would be eliminated consequent, upon expropriation of existing services.

As far as real and rational co-ordi-nation is concerned private industry is ready to accept It, and to examine any proposals made in that direction. No such proposals are in fact contained in the ministerial statement. To destroy road transport and the industry’ that has grown up round It, and greatly to reduce the economic value of the national highways, is not coordination in any sense of the term. The analogy whlHi the Minister seeks to draw between his proposed policy of expropriation of goods transport services, and the passenger transport situation in cities both in the Dominion and abroad, is fallacious, irrelevant and misleading. Such measures of oO r oMiliation as have been achieved In passenger traffic In cities leave the public a choice of alternative forms of transport and the necessary measure of protection for railways analogous to that actuating the Motor Omnibus Act Is already given by licensing control. In the city the passenger has to a great ex(Continued In next column.)

tent the choice of trams and buses, and to some extent of trains and ferries, while there Is also the further alternative of extensive taxi services to ensure flexibility and mobility. Socialisation of road motor services, 90 per cent of whioh, according to the Minister, could be eliminated in favour of the railways, leaves the customer with the choice of only one means of transport; that Is, with virtually no choice whatever.

Passenger control moreover is imposed In the Interest of the passenger and the service, and would not be tolerated by the public for any other purpose; whereas It is virtually admitted that goods motor expropriation is to be imposed, not in the interests of the user, but in the Interests of an alternative and less convenient form of transport by rail. City users of transport have dublloate and alternative servloes, why should not users of goods transport maintain similar facilities as they are available to-day? Railway Competition. The Government policy is obviously intended to prevent anybody requiring goods transport to use it if it competes with the railways. Increasing motor registrations, however, prove the growing popularity of goods motor transport and its convenience to the publio. It is preferred because it is the most economic form available. Why should the public be deprived of the form of transport that it finds most useful, convenient and economical? The Minister refers to the fact that,’ for the moment, it fs proposed to take over only about 200 vehicles out of the very much larger total. These, however, though numerically few, are the key -services, and nobody can doubt that the rest will sooner or later share the same fate. If the Government Is sincere In its professed intention to nationalise transport on a basis of “single ownership,” it oannot and will not stop here. When the key services have been swallowed up, the rest will follow If the present policy is to be carried out. The Minister states that under Government monopoly the standard of service will ‘‘compare more than favourably with private enterprise.” This is a mere loose assertion that from its nature is unverified, and oannot be verified. It is, however, contrary to the almost universal experience of State monopolies In the past. When the State takes over an economic service, experience shows* that constructive innovation and progress usually cease, that efficiency drops, and that costs rise. These higher costs for poorer service are either passed on to the consumers of the service, or loaded in the form of deficits on to the unfortunate taxpayer, who in all conscience has a big enough load to carry to-day, without adding to his burdens by the gratuitous destruction of a profitable industry and its conversion into a State service on monopoly and stereotyped lines. When a service is nationalised, then Inevitably the department and not the customer becomes the chief object In view. A Prosperous Industry. On grounds of efficiency, convenience, and cost, the consumers of road transport in New Zealand have shown decisively that they prefer the present road services. These services employ many men, use much capital, and show a, satisfactory profit. What Is the sense in destroying a prosperous Industry In pursuit of an academic predeliotion for socialism? If private Individuals and firms can do a job to the satisfaction of all oonoerned, there is no case for Intervention by the public authorities.

Here and elsewhere there is a certain amount of duplication. This, however, is unavoidable If the benefits of competition in improving Service and reducing costs are to be enjoyed. The so-called wastes of competition are exaggerated, but the wastes of Government monopoly in the shape of poorer services, higher costs, and dictatorial methods have been experienced in most Instances where such monopolies have been established. Under the camouflage of an ostensible desire to eliminate Imaginary waste, the Government proposes to introduce the much greater if more Intangible wastes that would Inevitably accompany a policy of socialisation. As far as the consumer is concerned, freedom as the consumer is concerned, worth fighting for by the people who do not desire to beoome a race of socialised serfs.