A STATE MONOPOLY IN TRANSPORT

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 737, 9 August 1929, Page 8

A STATE MONOPOLY IN TRANSPORT

MR. H. H. STERLING’S opinion that both the road and railway transport systems in the Dominion might profitably be co-ordinated under State direction could be appreciated a great deal more readily if it had been demonstrated in the past that any State-operated transport system eonld be separated entirely from political influence. All will agree with Mr. Sterling’s observations that in general efficiency and in the enthusiasm of the staff the New Zealand railway system cannot reasonably be criticised. New Zealanders who go abrqact are often agreeably surprised to find how well the Dominion system compares with all except the realty high-class systems of Europe and America. Even such faults as occur can often be traced to the errors of past years rather than to any flaw in the policy pursued today. But it is nevertheless difficult to admit that co-ordination of both road and railway services would not be socialisation carried too far. For one thing, severe legislation would be necessary to vest such a wide monopoly in the Government. Apart altogether from- the monopoly it enjoys on the State railway lines, the Railway Department is protected from competition of similar character because of the cost that is involved in any railway venture. With road seiwices the position is entirely different. The aspiring Napoleon of road transport has only to acquire a time-payment automobile, and pay his taxes, to be free to enter the business. Whether he succeeds is another matter, because often the very circumstances of his beginning are the signs of lax methods which prohibit ultimate success. Against sucli competition the railways are protected at once because they are operated by a trained and disciplined staff. The competition that Mr. Sterling deplores would have been much more disastrous if many service-car drivers and operators bad not lacked that acute business sense which he cites somewhat paradoxically as a reason why they should be controlled. In the few cases in which it has hitherto attempted to co-ordinate road and railway services, the Railway Department has not been conspicuously successful. The best instance of the fact that competition springs eternal lias occurred at Hastings, where a bus fleet that the Railway Department acquired in order to buy out competition is now opposed on the short run between Hastings and Napier by licensed taxi-cars, which carry passengers at a very cheap fare and must be doing the department’s business considerable damage. If the department bought out the taxis or secured in that class of transport the monopoly it has acquired for itself in bus and railway transport between the two towns concerned, there is nothing to suggest that active competitors would not then start to run motor-cycles and sidecars. There are so many pitfalls in the way of any attempt to monopolise all forms of land transport that no Government should proceed without the utmost caution before committing itself to a principle of sucli scope.