WELLINGTON TOPICS

Hokitika Guardian, 20 April 1931, Page 2

WELLINGTON TOPICS

RAILWAY CONTROL. POLITICAL OR NATIONAL. (Special Correspondent). WELLINGTON, April 16. The discussion on the motion for tlie second reading of. the Government Kail -way Amendment Bill in the House oi Representatives was not particularly edifying at any stage of its progress. The Prime .Minister, while expressing liis own firm conviction that the railways should be removed from political control did not make it quite clear how he would have this reform brought about. With a board of directors, he said, the business mind would come into contact with the trained railway servant mind. r lho railway management would have • the benefit df the outside commercial view. He was quite confident that the proposed change in policy was a wise one. All this uas very admirable so far as it went, but it did not go so far as the House and the gallaries expected it would, and it left the leader of the Opposition with nil opportunity to suggest that the Government was not attacking the problem with the courage the situation demanded.

THE WHOLE HOG —The Hon. J. G. 'Coates, free of Mmhitorial responsibility himself, urged the Prime Minister to take his courage in both hands—a step Mr Forbes was not likely to omit—and see liis adventure right through. Mr Coates realised the high ideals of the Prime Minister in (facing the position; but it appeared to him that the Bill before the House would result merely in one management superimposing upon another management until the whole fabric returned to its former condition. ■{‘lf the New Zealand railways were to he dependent upon a financial policy lasting from year to year, and if they were to be dependent upon the Minister of Finance, for their system of acicountingd' emphasized Mr Coates, ■“they would get nowhere.” Warming to his subject as he approached; his peroration lie confessed he failed to see how the Bill as it; stood could gee rid' of political control. He was afraid indeed, that it would have an opposite effect and he hoped the Prime Minister would retain an open mind on the subject until the Reform benches'had spoken.

(.v,**, FRANK CRITICISM.'. • 'Jss&fcThe local newspapers, like many members of the House, are far from being satisfied with the “depoliticalisntion” proposals of the Government. “Si)file atteifipt has beetl made by the Governfnent in tbe Railway Amehdjnettt Bill,” says the “Rotfiitlioh,* 4 “to carry out its declared policy' of .ViSivordng the railways ffom political „ control, but the decree seems to be ■ conditional rather than absolute. It i,-KRs to be admitted, of course, that, unlaps'the railways could be handed over ' tfo the proposed board of directors' in W : condition that would make 1 tnem .•jftpancially independent of Parliament they would still have to be kept-in tlie .Finance Minister’s leading strings. stpart 'from that, however, the department’s independence is qualified Bi too many ways. There are too many ftlaces where the political finger can, be thrust into the railway pie.” Similar complaints to those emphasized by •the morning paper were reiterated by several speakers when the reading debate was resumed yesterday. Quite a number of speakers held that tlie railways would be safer in the hands of the present general manager than in those of the proposed board, but it is not expected that this view will be genera Ujy 'endorsed. &•' A MORE CHEERING VIEW. Tlie “Evening Post” is rather better disposed towards the proposals of the Government than its morning con-

temporary. “We agree,” it says, l ' , that the authority of the-Minister to jet ate what reserve or depreciation , )-juhds should be set aside is open to objection ; but the consultation with tlie Minister of Finance should not have i_’Undesirable consequences. As we pointed out previously, the Minister is not , given a power to vote. More danger- , ous is the provision that classification, .. salaries and wages shall be subject to control by Parliament. This leaves the, way open for political interference '■■nnd ties the hands of the Board wnere ittuis essential that the hands should ■ -be V-free. But with the removal o’f these • weaknesses the Bill affords the opporutunity for establishing an efficient system of non-political control. The United and Reform Parties agree that

such a system is needed and with reaany differences of opinion on methods should be removable.” This is an ’*• optimistic view, justified by facts, "'which should bring the thinking meni- ' hers of Parliament together >n a saino conclusion.