POLITICS OR BUSINESS

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 70, 19 September 1930, Page 8

POLITICS OR BUSINESS

There was too much of politics in the* debate on the Railways Statement last night. The Leader of the Opposition accused the Minister of Railways of preaching hopelessness and, further, of allowing political considerations to interfere with trainrunning arrangements. On the other side, the Reform Party was charged with responsibility for the difficult position of the railways. Labour, never having been directly responsible for Railway administratioiii criticised both parties. Such debate is of little value. It does not add a penny to railway revenue, nor reduce by one penny the loss which must be borne by the taxpayers. It could have been well left unsaid and more attention given to the formulation of a constructive policy for the future. In framing such a policy the responsibility lies mainly on the Government, but neither Opposition party can afford to stand aside and make the Government policy some sort of political "Aunt Sally." If the Government's ideas are unsound it is the business of the other parties to submit proposals which promise better results.

Yesterday's debate was not a promising beginning in such political co-operation. There was, as we have said, too much recrimination and fault-finding.' Yet certain ideas were outlined which may be the basis for further and more constructive discussion. , The Minister of Railways said that further running economies would be instituted when the Railways Commission reported; but his main idea was to check wasteful transport duplication by a legislative road-and-rail co-ordinating scheme. We are convinced that this must be undertaken; but what has the Acting-Prime Minister to say about it? Only a week ago he told a deputation that the Government had contemplated postponing the Transport Bill as a contentious measure. There can be little coordination without legislation to constitute a directing body and vest it with some authority. Already this measure has been too long deferred. The Leader of the Opposition, though he formerly emphasised the greatness of the handicap placed on the railways by uneconomic competition, did not offer the Government his assistance to remove it Has Mr. Coates revised his opinions on transport control? -

The remedy offered by Mr. Coates was to depoliticalise the railways, by placing control in the hands of a board of directors. We agree that this must be faced, but the powers of a board of directors, of the Minister, and of the General Manager must be carefully considered and exactly defined. In Canada a system has been evolved which assures the General Manager of the Support of a board of directors and yet leaves him free to frame and bring into operation a constructive policy without political interference. A similar method should be applied here; but it will be difficult to inaugurate. One has only-to read the speeches delivered yesterday to realise with how great reluctance the politicians will surrender their right to meddle. For example, the Minister of Railways had to submit to much criticism from the Labour Party for his action in declining to allow the railway enterprise, to be saddled with superfluous labour charges. If non-political control is to be a success it must be understood that it shall not be subject to exceptions such as this. The management must have responsibility and authority, and must riot be required to serve political ends, either in carrying unprofitable freights or in employing unnecessary labour. The Labour Party's policy was the least definite and the most unsatisfactory. Indeed, it appeared to be nothing more nor less than that the railways should continue a charge on the general taxpayer so long as "service" was rendered. One may subscribe to the general principle that service, not profit, should be the great aim of -any State undertaking, and yet oppose so loose an interpretation of this idea. Carried to extremes, it would mean the operation of the railways at a growing loss, so long as anyone was prepared to use the trains. But our resources are limited; we must limit our services to those of the greatest value. And the best test of value is the puMie readiness to pay for a service Wo

cannot have everything free; and' in the long run everything must be paid for. It is more particularly desirable that this test of payment should be applied when a means must be found of directing transport into the most economic channels. To assure this for the benefit of the whole community we are convinced that the non-political direction now advocated by Mr. Coates must be adopted with a well-designed measure of transport control as sought by Mr. Veitch.