RAILWAY IMPROVEMENT.

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2280, 14 October 1914, Page 7

RAILWAY IMPROVEMENT.

THE. GOVERNMENT POLICY OUTLINED. MINISTER'S CLEAR STATEMENT. "THE CARDS ON TEE TABLE." The Legislative Council sat at 2.30 p.m. The Education Reserves Bill, the Animals' "Protection Bill, and the Remounts Encouragement Bill were received from the House of Representatives, and read a first time. The Fisheries Amendment Bill, the Taieri Land Drainage Amendment Bill, the Ranptitaiki Land Drainage Amendment Bill, and the Hauraki Plains Amendment Bill were road a second time. The Hon. H. D. BELL gavo notice that to-day he would move to have the Standing Orders so far suspended as to allow Government Bills to pass through all their stages. • The Council agreed to the proposal to insert in the Licensing Amendment Bill a provision limiting New Zealandmade wine to a strength of 40 per cent. LOCAL RAILWAYS , LINES FOR COUNTRY SETTLERS WEAK OPPOSITION. The Hon. H. D. BELL moved the second reading of the Local Railways Bill. The measure, he_said, liad been the subject of very proper consideration, and the principal' ground of objection to it seemed to be that it would permit of an increased, number of railways not constructed and possessed by the Government. The Bill proposed to allow local bodies to borrow money for the construction of lines and rate themselves. . _ Evidently having in mind criticism which had been levelled against the Bill, the Hon. Mr. Bell said: "The thing that surprises me is that nothing was said last year, and the Bill of tliis year is exactly 1 the same, as the Bill of last year. There is no pnvato ownership. It is local ownership by local authorities—just the same as was provided in the Bill of last year. What is the distinction between the two measures, I am really unable to understand. . . . The whole reason for the alteration as to the local authority is that existing local authorities are not equipped and selected for the purpose (the purpose of the Bill), and there is the further reason that the lines will run through the districts of several local authorities,'' The Hon. H. P. WIGRAM agreed with the Leader of the Council that the Bill was desirable and necessary.- There was this difference .between a railway of this kind and ,a railway owned by a private company: that under the. Bill the settlers would not be out for direct profit from the railway—they might even sustain some indirect loss in order to derive indirect gain through tho general, benefit the line would confer on the district. Ho was of opinion that the Bill should be altered so that there would be no conflict of authority ;• that the Government' shbiild- exteiid its control' of existing railways to all iew lines. . Multiplicity of regulations and -gineral managers would possibly result in friction. It seemed to him, also, that tho'Government should-use its own Department to run all these local lines, except lines which did not connect with the State system. Mr. TOg,ram said that ho would like the Leader of tie Council to inform the Chamber if Manager of the State Railways Department (Mr. Hiley) had 1 been consulted as to the Bill's proposals about local control, and, if 60, what that official's opinion was. The Government should take'chargo of the lines, and the net profit should be handed over to the boards, and if the profit was insufficient to pay th o interest, boards should have to rate themselves.'

■■. Statesmanlike Proposal. The Hon. 0. SAMUEL said that' while he regretted.that the State could not (in the circumstances) construct these lines, he approved the Bill, and he hoped that nothing would be done to prevent, its passage. He thought, however, that it would be a good thing if the Bill wae altered so that the State would take- upon itself the construction of : the lines at the expense of the set--tiers, end would run them at fhe ex-' pense of the settlers. The Government was doing a statesmanlike thing in jooking to the interests of the settlers in the manner proposed in the Bill. The Hon. G. JONES, gave it as his view of the measure that the Bill was fundamentally wrong; he objected to it entirely. The promoters of • the Bill were- groping in the dark to do sometiling which might be better accomplished by some other method. The State should ' construct and run the "The Hon. E.' MOORE stated that though he had generally approved the theory of State-owned' railway!;, ho would vote for the second reading of the Bill. Settlers would welcome the measure as , one of great value to them. Company Lines Barred. The Hon. J. T. PAUL assured the Council that he was desirous of seeing something done for the country settlers, but Baid that he thought that railways made under the Bill would, put a very heavy expense upon the backblocks farmers. This country could stand a very heavy expenditure on railways. The arguments, so far as the debate had gone, were decidedly against tho wisdom of putting the Bill on the Statute Book. However, the Bill prohibited the company railway—at least, it did not contemplate it. The Hon. Mr. Bell: It repeals it. Tho Hon. W. MORGAN thought that if settlers wore i willing to rate themselves to get railways (as they rated themselves for roads), there was no reason why the opportunity, of getting the lines should be denied them. - Replying, the Hon. Mr. BELL said that he had not consulted Mr. Hiley about the Bill, and that, in any case, I it was not Mr. Hiley's point of view which lie was taking, but the point of view of the settlers who needed railways He said that ho was willing to sucE»st that it should be made permissive for the Government to construct, and the Minister of Railways to run, the The Bill was read a second time, and tho Council rose at 5.20 p.m.