"SINGLE-OWNERSHIP" TRANSPORT.

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 152, 15 July 1937, Page 4

"SINGLE-OWNERSHIP" TRANSPORT.

Except to tkose who are determined to bring about the socialisation of the means of production distribution and exchange at whatever cost to the connnunity, there is no aclvantage in socialisation, i.e. "singleownership,' ' for its own sake. On the contrary, there is considenable loss, both immediate and prospectivc, in eliminating healthy competitioii. The official reply of the New Zealand Transport Alliance to the Hon. R. Sernple 's deelaration of single-ownership policy for transport services, Baya that on grounds of efficieney, convonience, 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 predeliction for socialism? If private individuals and firms can do a job to the satisfaction of all concerned, there is no case for intervention by the public authority. The hollowness of the ministerial statement is nowhere more fully exhibited than in the final summary of the alleged advantages of the so-called single-ownership policy, In the first place, it is claimed that there would be a substantial increase in raliways revenue with only a small increase in expenses. This however is not borne out by experience of railway operation. Railway costs tend to vary in almost exact proportion with tonnage handled, and there is every probability that the additional load thrown on the railways, particularly if 90 3 per cent of the existing services are to be abolished, will raise railway overhead, and perhaps force a riso in railway freights. Figures show thrt in 1934, on a ton. nage of 5,642,000, the ratio of expenses to revenue was 86.65 per cent.; in 1915 it rose to 86.98 per cent. on an increased tonnage of 6,024,000, while in 1936, though tonnage rose to 6,189,000 the ratio also again rose to 88.46 per cent. In his second point the Minister refere to the saving of wear and loar on the roads. This wear and teiar however is paid for by the industry in the form of heavy traffic fees, tyre and petrol taxes. If the wear and tear is eliminated, then the revenue from theso is also eliminated, so that the situation is unaffected. The third point, that of diminishing danger on the highways by eliminating goods traffic,. is almost too futile to be worth refutation. The implication that goods vehicles are especially danger ous is incorreet, experience shows the contrary to be the case.