RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 86, 8 October 1931, Page 7

RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION

BOARD'S ADVERSE REPORT ADOPTED HOUSE SITS ALL NIGHT After an all-night sitting, until 5.40 o'clock this morning, the House of Representatives adopted without amendment the recommendations of the Government Railways Board that v*rk should be stopped on the South Island Main Trunk line, the East Coast line, and the Westport-Inangahua line. Strong opposition to the board's recommendations was expressed not only from the official Opposition benches, but from Government and Independent members as well, but when the division bells were set ringing there was an ample majority in favour of the board's report. The I House did not reach the Committee stage until 3.30 o'clock this i morning, and it was then that the merits of individual lines were ; debated. Three amendments were moved, but each was substan- ; tially defeated. The House rose at 5.40 a.m. until this evening.

Continuing his speech in moving tho resolution, after "The Post" went to press,- the Prime Minister (the Kight Hon. G. W. Forbes) went on to deal more specifically > with the various lines affected by the board's report. It was a, matter of very grave doubt, he said, whether the passenger traffic , to the South Island would be diverted ' from the present Wellington-Lyttelton ferry service by the South Island Main Trunk. It' was a well-known fact that "the Union Company had no intention of abandoning the present ferry service;, in fact, the company had just purchased a new steamer. Tho board had als6 reported that much of the land that would be served by the railway would not justify the expense of a highway, let alone a railway. In regard to the Putorino-Wairoa line, the district that would, be served was already served by motor transport and • t>y sea. ' Even if the harbour services went out of existence it would bo very difficult for the railways to make both ends meet. Mr. W. E. Barnard (Labour, Napier): "What harbour do you mean!" Mr. Forbes:'"Well, there"is Wairba." Mr. Barnard: "That is a very poor harbour.'' - i ' . Mr. Forbes: "But it vis. a harbour." The Prime Minister said that if every form of transport would give an undertaking that it would, go out of business in favour, of the railways it would be a different matter, but no such:undertaking was forthcoming. \ COAX. AND TIMBER. " Pealing with, the-West .Coast railway, Mr. Forbes 'said it was -claimed that this would be a" means of improving the coal output, but the fact was that half of the coal mines at present working were only working half time.. Mr. W. E; Parry (Labour, Auckland Central): "Shut out Australian coal." Mr. Forbes: "There' is very little coining in from Australia." Tho position in regard to timber,was very much the same as; that in regard to. coal. Mr. ,X/ Semple (Labour, Wellington Esist): "Prevent the importation of Australian timber." Mr. Forbes: "The timber mills at the present time are only working half time." - - Mr. W. L. Martin (Labour,. Raglan): "Your speech is a remarkably good.ar- * gument for an election." Mr. Semplo asked if the Prime Mm- : 3ster did not think that the Railway Board's report, if well founded, was not an indictment of the previous Government. , . ■ ( . Mr. Forbes: /'When the country is in R.position. to afford: these things, it is justified in going on with them, but when it can't afford them it must go ■without." \ REASON TOR AN ELECTION Tho-Leader of the < Opposition (Mr.' H. E. Holland) said Mr. Forbes had furnished a very good reason for Parliament going to the country immediately. He had practically told the House nothing. He had given the most remarkable renunciation of an election promise which the House had ever seen. Tiie United Party had secured office jn i 1928 on the very policy they were now destroying. That' part of Sir. Joseph Ward's policy was the soundest part of it, and Mr. Holland said he* believed railway. construction was still sound policy, because of tho value of railways in distribution. The correct line of action to take—the honourable course—would be for the Goveminent to cay it found it could not give effect to the policy, it had been ejected to carry out,'and .to ask the country for another expression of opinion. All that Mr. Forbes had said amounted to a charge of incapacity against-, the United Government. Mr. Holland said that if the lines were con--1 etructed on. a sound betterment .principle they would be safeguarded against any possible loss. In regard to the lack of coal being carried on the railways\he dedared that that was djue ,to the Government's policy of coal importations. If coal was systematically produced and distributed there would be no further cause to complain about the output. .......■■ Mr. Holland went on to state a case on behalf of the Westport-Inangahua line, which he said everyone knew must eventually be completed. If the work was stopped now, when it was nearly through, the capital charges would be enormously increased against the time when a future Government would complete it. Interest payments would go on as a dead loss. The Buller deputation had shown conclusively that the line would pay its expenses. If construction on the line was stopWed, what was the Government going to do with the 5000 workers, women, and "children who were dependent on the work, and with the expensive, equipment thrown out of use? Even if the men were given three months' wages, ■ that would be no recompense for the injustice done. The Railway Board's report meant the cessation of all railway construction. It looked to him like the influence of the oil interests as against the national railways. That viewpoint did not seem to have impressed itself oil members, but it was a- growing viewpoint throughout the Dominion. The two deputations that day had put forward an unanswerable case, and he had no doubt a similar case could be made up for the Gis-borne-Wairoa line. The Railway Board's recommendations were uneconomic, and constituted one of the most disastrous proposals ever put before the House. VICIOUS AND UNWISE. Mr. W. D. Lysnar (Independent, Gisfcorne) thanked the Prime Minister for making the question a non-party one. Labour voices; "Has he?" Mr. Lysnar said that the stopping of the railway in his . district—and he believed it was the same in the other districts—would be more vicious and unwise than the completing of it. He Bupported the completion of the main trunk lines instead of spending money on unproductive railway works such as the Auckland railway station. Over £7,500,000 had been spent in recent years on unproductive works. Mr.W. P, Endean (Government, Parnell): "In France they are pulling up some of'their railways." Mr. Lysnar: "We don't want to go to France, an old country. Here we have a country to develop." He said \ ''.:.. -

that unless the line to Gisborne was completed the whole district would be isolated. On the figures compiled by thebusinessmen and others of the district, the lino would return 14 per cent, on the cost. Anyone would lend money on a proposition like that. Mr. F. Langstone (Labour, Waitnarino): "Even Niemeycr." (Laughter.)' Mr. Lysnar said that the Prime Minister had claimed that there was a lack of finance for railway works, but no vote should be swayed on that account. The board had not taken into account the amount.of land that would be developed. There was practically no, harbour to compete with the Gisborne line except the Government harbour.. The members'of the Railways Board had not shown the business capacity that the Prime Minister had hoped they would. If the railway was not completed the Government would have tofind £177,000 per annum, while if it was completed, even on the board's figures, the loss would be £81,000 per annum. The railways were costing £48,000 per mile to construct, but the Workers' Union had stated that if the construction policy was altered they would guarantee that the cost would not exceed £30,000 per mile. The Government should give the men a trial on their scheme and thus save £18,000 per mile. . . ' . Mr. Semple: "If the Gisborne line was excluded from the report what attitude.would you take?" Mr. Lysnar: "I stand for the construction of all the main' trunk lines. It is only businesslike." Mr. J. A. Nash (Government, Palmerston): "Which is tho most important?" ,■'.,■'.. . . ... Mr. Lysnar: "The honourable gentleman can answer that. They are all important," He said that if transport competition was eliminated the railways would soon be in a sound position. The local bodies of. the Wairoa district had offered to. take over the Napier-Wairoa section of the East Coast: railway, and relieve the public of any risk of loss. The district was losing millions of pounds through want of the railway, and he hoped that the question would bo decided upon from a national viewpoint. ' [ THE EAST COAST LINE. Mr. X.: S. Williams (Government, Bay of Plenty) said he proposed in Committee to move an amendment to exclude reference to the Putorino-Wairoa line. '...'■" ;Mr. J. M'Combs (Labour, Lyttelton): '/That's a good way of, dividing the opponents to the resolution.'* Mr. 'Williams said that 92.58 per cent, of the work on the line had already been completed, anil the expense oh', the rest would, bo for labour and not material. There.was,a lot of land in the district which would be brought into production if the line were completed.. The..,main : work to be done was the completion of the Mohaka viaduct,, and the whole of the material; for the work was,in New Zealand.. A good deal of the work'could be done by tho unemployed, although he, was not suggesting :that the. permanent men should bepitt off; He isked the' Prime Minister ;to^say, definitely whether the Government would be prepared to allow a syndicate to take over the line.' ASPERSION ON DECENT MEN. ■ Mr, E. J. Howard (Labour, Christchurch South) said-lie was not surprised at the" report. He suggested that the board had.been set up for the very purpose of bringing down the report, a task which the Government was not prepared to face. Mr. W.J. Poison (Independent, Stratford): "That's an aspersion'on decent men." Mr. Howard: "Well, it was not onmy honourable1 friend, then." The one object of the board's existence was to close-down- the railways. The board believed that itself. The people who were.'likely-to Buffer most as a. result of the stoppages were, the-farmers, who had received tremendous concessions in the past. When the election came round, members would - urge the necessity of opening up fresh land for settlement, but surely the railways were .a means of developing land. More population was needed in New Zealand, and if there was one portion, of New Zealand that could carry more population it was that district served by the .East Coast railway. Another district that could be used for closer settlement was that served by the South Island Main Trunk. There were too many gaps in the railway system of the Dominion. He would support the completion of the lines on every possible occasion. ■ Mr. W. J. Jordan (Labour, Manukau) said that if the reason for stopping the South Island Main Trunk line was because they could not borrow the 'money, why then did the Prime Minister not say so? The Houso had therightto.know the facts. The only thing to guide the House was the statement of the board, and if it was logical to accept.the board's opinion, then it was logical to set up boards to deal with all the affairs of the country and do away with Parliament. FIRST AMENDMENT. Members of Parliament were just as capable of judging the position as the board, said Mr. Jordan, and he moved an amendment to the effect that the resolutions of the board should be referred to the Railways Committee of the House for investigation and re- ' port, the members of the Committee, accompanied bjr members of both Houses of Parliament, to have the opportunity of visiting the lines affected. He could not see any special qualification in the board. It was claimed that "the members had business ability, but'a business man might be ignorant of railway construction and land development. They had heard so much conflicting evidence that the members of the House should make a thorough investigation for themselves. That was what they were elected for, and that was the reason for his amendment! Mr. Barnard seconded the amendment. He said that it would get them out of a difficulty. It was the duty of Parliament to accept full responsibility and not seek a way out by means of a board. There seemed to bo a growing tendency to delegate Parliament's powers to boards, and he wondered; if this was an attempt to turn one's back on democracy altogether. He thought that it was - quite possible that a busi-

nesslike guarantee could be obtained from the people of the East Coast that all the transport business would be given to the railway. The board was not altogether correct when it that there were a number of good harbours along the East Coast, and its report generally took no cognisance of tho fact that there was a Transport Bill before the House. It was the duty of the people's representatives to investigate all the circumstances involved in the construction of.the proposod railways and make a decision which would be binding for the Dominion. It would be unwise to adopt the decision of the Board before seeing the effect of the transport legislation. The amendment that had been moved had not been put forward with a view to embarrassing the Government. Mr. Forbes: "Oh, no! It's quite helpful." ALMOST COMPLETED. Mr. H. M. Camptjell (Government, Hawkes Bay) said the board had not taken into account the prospective value of the various lines, but had merely looked upon the whole question from an £s. d. point of view. If they abandoned the East Coast railway it would mean that they would bo throwing away nearly £4,000,000. It would be' better to complete the line and thus save something from the wreck. Ninety per cent, of the money that was required for the completion of the Putorino-Wairoa line would be expended on labour, and nothing could be more ridiculous than to stop the line, Mr. Campbell asked the Minister of Railways to consider handing the East Coast railways over to a syndicate. Mr. C. H. Clinkard (Government, Rotorua). said the completion of the Main Trunk railways was essential if the railways were to be made to pay. He was not one of those who thought that the railways should lower their colours to the motor transport. He would like to see the whole- problem left over for twelve months. Ho was not satisfied to see the Resolutions passed as they stood. THE STRATFORD LINE. Mr. G. C. Black (Independent, Motueka) asked why they had had no reference to the Stratford lino, which, on the figures submitted, would show a greater operating loss than any of those embodied in the resolution. The board was only a buffer, and it was regrettable that the Prime Minister had referred to the independence of the board. The board had made a swift tour along the route to bo traversed by' the .Te Kuha-Inangahua line, and could not possibly have surveyed the district. If it was a matter of finance, they should deal with the Stratford line aa well. . : Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Labour, Christchurch East) said that if they , were going to put the railways under construction on a commercial basis, they should also place the roads under/construction •on the same basis. If the money could not be raised on the London market it could be raised locally. Would anybody say that tho Tawa Flat deviation was more necessary or more desirable than, the South Island Main Trunk.. All the lines under discussion were 'eminently more essential than the Tawa Flat devia? tion. The Minister of Public Works had defeuded the Government'a action, but he had formerly approved of the Palmerston North deviation, which would benefit only a few land jobbers, and the Auckland railway station, which was of less use to the people of Auckland than the old station. It was no wonder that the Government wanted to postpone the General Election. GOOD TIMES AND BAD. Mr. Semple said that if the lines were -to bo stopped then they should not have been started. If they were not justified they should not have been commenced in/prosperous times, because the squandering of money could not be sanctioned in ] good times.or bad.- The stoppage of the works would mean that hundreds of men who had dependants would be thrown but of employment.

The debate was icarried on until 2.25 a.m., when a division was taken on Mr. Jordan's amendment, .which, was lost by 43 votes to 22. The division list was as follows :— For the amendment (22): — Armstrong Jordan Ataore Langstone Barnard Lysnar « • Black M'Keen Carr ; ' Macpherson Chapman , Makitanara Fraser Nash, W. . ■ Healy O'Brien Hogan . Parry Holland,. H. E. Savage Howard , Semple Against the amendment (43):— Ansell / Linkl'ater Bitchener Lye Bodkin ' M' Donald Broadfoot ■ Macmillan Burnett Martin Campbell Massey, "W. Wr Clinkard. Munns Coates r Murdoch . Cobbe Nash, J. A. .De.la.Perrelle Ngata Dickie >. Ransom Donald Rush worth Endean Stallworthy Field Sykes Forbes Te Tomo Hamilton Waite : Harris Ward • / .Hawke • ■- Wilkinson Holland, H. Williams Jones , Wright Jull Tountr Kyle ■ :

Mr. P. Eraser (Labour, Wellington Central) condemned the action of United members in voting against the continuation of the lines. The whole question was whether the representatives of the people were to control the destinies of the country or -whether the control was to bo handed over to a small coterie of, men. The appointment oi: the Railways Board had been one of the most glaring examples of political insincerity in New Zealand's history. The Government had blindly accepted the- advice of the board. Matters in New Zealand had come to a pretty pass. The railways had too long been the football of party polities. If the policy of the board was to be accepted blindly, then he asked that some promise bo given that the interests of the men, women, and, children who would be involved would be adequately provided for. There was a moral responsibility on the House'to1 see that something was done for these people. MUST FACE HARD TACTS. Replying to the debate, at 3.10 a.m., the Prime Minister said the country could not go on building railways that would be unprofitable. If they went on as the Labour Party wanted them to do they would very goon, hit the rocks. They had to face the hard, economic facts. Mr. Forbes refuted the suggestion that the Railway Board had not made a proper investigation of the position, and said it had had all the facts and figures before it. The members of the House had had a free hand so far aa the voting was concerned; all he had asked members to do ■was not to pre-judge the case. The Government would bo pleased to consider any suggestion that a syndicate should run the lines. . The House went into Committee-at 3.30 a.m. ELECTION FIRST? Mr. H.- E. Holland appealed to the Prime Minister to allow the whole question to stand over until after tho General Election had been held. If it were the intention of the Government to postpone the election, then the House should know it. He predicted that big changes would follow the appeal to the electorate and- that if it were subse-

quently decided to resume work on the lines the cost would be considerably increased and the country involved in much unnecessary expense. "In view ot the fact," added Mr. Holland, "that an election is imminent, unless the Government has decided it will not face the electors—Mr. Armstrong: "Daro not." Mr. Holland: " — it would be wise to allow the changes to stand over until the people have had an opportunity of declaring themselves," The Prime Minister Btated that Mr. Coates had already explained that the works would be left,in such a condition that they could be re-started when it was possible to do so. The General Election did not enter into the question; it was a question of the country s financial position. , Mr. Holland: "Can we take it the General Election will be held?" The Prime Minister replied that it any change were contemplated Mr. Holland would be advised of it as soon as possible. Mr. Holland: "There has been no decision yet?" • : The. Prime Minister repeated that Mr. Holland would Mb advised as soon as any change was contemplated. Mr. E. F. Healy (Government, Wairau) moved That the reference in tho resolution to the South Island Main Trunk be deleted. On a division the amendment was lost by 40 votes to 24. Tho division list was as follows: — For the Amendment (24). Armstrong Jordan Atmore Langstoae Barnard - ' Lysnar Black M'Keen Carr . Macpherson Chaptfutii ■ Makitanara > Fraser Nash, W. Hawko O'Brien Healy . Parry Hogan Savage Holland, H. E. Semple Howard Ward Against the Amendment (40). Ansell Linklater Bitchener Lye Broadfoot, M'Donald Burnett Macmillan Campbell Martin ; Clinkard Massey, W. W. . Coates Munns. Cqbbe Murdoch do la Perrelle Nash, J. Dickie .. Ngata Donald Ransom Endean Rushworth Field Stallworthy Forbes, Sykes Hamilton Te Tomo Harris Waite Holland, H. WilkinsonJones Williams Jull Wright Kyle Young. Pairs: For the Amendment —M'Combs, Sullivan, M'Dougall, Mason. Against— Poison,; J. N. Massey, Stewart, Fletcher.

PLEA FOR EAST COAST LINE. An effort was then made by Mr. Williams to have the East Coast line excluded from the scope of the resolution. ... Mr. Fraser asked whether, when the works were stopped, the earthworks, tunnels, and viaducts would be left in good condition. He understood that the material for the Mohaka viaduct, one of the biggest in the world, was at present at Tauranga, and he suggested that the best course would bu to construct the viaduct and thus saTe the steel, from deterioration. Mr. Coates said' that if the steel, which was no use for anything else, was left at Tauranga it would detcrior- | ate owing to the proximity of sea air, (and the suggestion was that it should

be shifted to the site of the viaduct. He believed that this was the most sensible course, but the matter would have to bo considered by Cabinet. In his opinion the works generally should be left in ship-shape order, and that would take some time. Mr. W. Nash (Labour, Hutt) contended that the Government was not attempting to justify the board's report, but was pleading that there was no money to carry on the works. The Prime Minister said that it had been his duty to place the.board's report before the House. The report showed that further construction would involve additional burdens on the taxpayers, and these could not be tolerated at the present time. The amendment was defeated by 38 votes to 25. ' Messrs. Campbell and Williams voted for the amendment. The Leader of the Opposition then moved for the deletion of the reference to the Westport lino. There was no debate, the amendment being defeated by 40 votes to 22. . The motion was agreed to by 41 votes to 21, and was reported to the House. GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSIBILITY. The Leader of the Opposition said that he regretted the verdict of the divisions, and made a plea for the welfare of the men and their dependants] who would be affected by the decisions arrived at. It would not be enough to place the men on ordinary relief works, but the Government had a moral contract with these men, and he hoped that the Prime Minister would make a clear statement as to what their future would be. The Government had a responsibility that had to be faced. . Mr. Lysnar regretted that the Government had not allowed the divisions to be taken on non-party lines, as was promised. He liked a fair run and a fair fight, and could take a beating, but when the party whips cracked one could draw one's own conclusions. He regretted that Mr. Williams had moved a resolution separating the East Coast line from the others, as they should have stood for all or none at all.