THE H.B. TRIBUNE FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1930 THE RAILWAYS DEBATE

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XX, Issue 232, 19 September 1930, Page 4

THE H.B. TRIBUNE FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1930 THE RAILWAYS DEBATE

The debate on the Bailways Statement which was opened in the House last night is one which should be closely followed not only by the direct taxpayers of the country, but also by all those who recognise that heavy taxation, with the prospect of still heavier, is one of the main factors in creating unemployment. At present the House is, of course, dealing more particularly with the management of the open lines under the control of the Railways Department. These, however, should be considered in conjunction with the lines that are now under construction or in contemplation. Only by taking the -wo together are we going to get any sort of an idea as to where the country is eventually to be landed. Any such broad examination is, however, precluded at the moment simply because the Minister of Public Works, who has charge of the new construction, has so ar failed to bring down his statement telling us what he is doing and intends to do. As to these intentions we are left to bits of scrappy information supplied through the Press. The excuse offered for this delay is a desire to embody in the Statement the results of Dr. Hornell’s investigations at Arapuni, which, in turn, means that he is probably being bustled when he should bo allowed the fullest time for arriving at his conclusions. In any event, the manifest outcome ’s going to be that discussion of the Public Works Statement will be shoved away into the back end of the session instead of receiving deliberate consideration. This policy of procrastination—for it is palpably a matter of design—is quite in keeping with the reference of the subject of railway building to a parliamentary committee that cannot possibly have any considered recommendations to make until after the House rises. This is, of course, apart altogether from the constitution of the Committee, which, as has been previously shown, is such that the Government can rely on a complaisant majority report from it. Thus, on the face of it, the main idea is to so manoeuvre proceedings that Cabinet will have a practically free hand to do is it pleases, at any rate, until Parliament meets again. During tho intervening eight or nine

months the country will probably be so deeply committed that retraction will be almost impossible. This will mean that we shall have some further millions spent with the result—according to the figures presented by the Minister himself — that further taxation to the extent of at least three-quarters of a million—probably a very “conservative” esti-mate-will have to be imposed. Coming back to the immediate subject of the debate that is now proceeding, there can be no gainsaying what the Leader of the Opposition has to say on the subject of political control in the conduct of the business of the railways. The drawbacks were quite obvious enough when there was some measure of independence and stability about the Government in office. Even then there were shufflings of portfolios that interfered with continuity of administration, and also political influences that at the very best engendered jealousies and suspicions. All these objections •re manifestly manifolded when we come to have a Government, such as the present, that is not only almost wholly without experience in the conduct of national affairs, but is also quite wholly at the mercy of a minority party that treats it with little short of contempt. Thus its only hope of hanging on to office lies in truckling to the party that boasts aloud of holding the “balance of power” and of every intention to use it to its own ends. Already, too, within the brief period of a good deal less than two years that the Lnited Party has held the reins of Government there has been a change in the identity of the Ministers of both Railways and Public Works. Just as those who held these portfolios under Sir Joseph Ward might have been hoped,to be acquiring some little inkling of the working of their much involved departments the rearrangement necessitated by his resignation thrust new men into these positions. Thus, the process of self-education to fit them, as far as politicians can be fitted, for their jobs had to be started all over again. They, in their turn, will just be beginning to feci their feet when next year’s general election will almost assuredly put them both out to make room for yet others. Under these circumstances can there be any possible hope of the affairs of these two great departments, constantly dealing with millions at the risk of the unhappy and helpless taxpayers—both direct and indirect—being conducted on anything approaching businesslike lines? Any such hope is only rendered the more hopeless when we have the Labour Party leader, to whom the Government has to bow, declaring last night that the railways should be regarded not as a business concern, but as a “social service,” and showing himself always as ready to tax out of existence the capital that alone can provide profitable employment.