Yes, because the railway people definitely got the power only to run the buses for specific purposes and along specified roads, and until positive power was given them by some Act they were definitely precluded from the roads. It is to be observed that a proposal in the Bill under Section 12 is to bring to an end whatever existing statutory powers the railway companies have at the moment. Then there is a small point. It is in order that when instructions and orders are given with regard to the keeping of accounts in the future, the road accounts must be kept entirely separate from the railway accounts. If the present powers that the railway companies have with regard to roads were continued it would mean that the accounts could not be definitely segregated, and there would be a great deal of mixing up with the road services which were not previously allowed.
If the public get the extra benefit by reason of these powers, then there is all the greater reason why the powers should be given. There are two reasons why the powers proposed can serve the public. The first is that they will enable a district not at present served by any sort of railway, not directly connected with a railway system, to be connected hereafter with a railway system by means of a road service operated under the railway companies, so that a through rate can be given from districts now unserved as far as railway service is concerned. In that way a district can be brought closer in touch with the railway systems of the country. The second point is that giving the railways those powers will mean in the end, I do not say it will mean at the beginning, the elimination of all unnecessary overlapping. It will also take away any competition which is not advantageous to the public in the long run.
There seems to be an apprehension that the railways will be enabled to give a motor service, after getting those powers, against which the present private motor owners cannot compete. That seems to me only to indicate the fear that the railway companies will, in fact, be able to give a cheaper service under the heavier conditions laid on them under this Act—heavier conditions than any private motor owner has to submit to at present. I think that it will be able to give a service better than the private motor owners at the moment can give. If the railway companies are enabled to do that, then the public will be protected against a monopoly, while the railway companies themselves would be safeguarded against a lowering of their revenue by reason of injudicious action. The public have the right to get the benefit of the cheapest possible transport.
There are two other matters that I would like to refer to. One is the competition that is going on at the moment, competition between a system which has to finance completely the upkeep and the maintenance and repair of its own permanent highway and which cost the Great Southern Railways a sum of nearly £700,000 last year, and in competition with that particular type of service you have a road service, not having to pay the complete cost either of the building or the upkeep of its permanent way.
There was a line of policy indicated here last year which, subject to modification and according to circumstances, amounted to this: that the contribution from the general rates towards the roads was to be stabilised at a particular percentage addition over what was paid from the rates in 1914; that the expenditure on roads over and above that figure should, for the future, be met by taxation on motor vehicles, and to that extent, and only to that extent, to which roads are not subsidised by the general rates, private motor owners have to bear the cost of their highway. The amount of the subvention to the motor owners for the upkeep of their particular track is a very big thing, and it seems unfair that the railway companies should have to pay a sum amounting to £700,000 for the upkeep of their highway, and then be put in competition with people who have not to pay for the upkeep of their particular highway more than fifty per cent. of the cost of building and upkeep, and that at the same time the railway companies should be prohibited from using the highway of their rivals, towards which they pay a certain amount by way of rates. Objection may be raised that the railway companies, by running a motor service over the roads, will add to the wear and tear on the roads, and that this will involve extra cost as regards their upkeep, and that this wear and tear is going to increase road expenditure, and further that that expenditure will have to be met by motor taxation. In so far as that works out to be true, a proportion of it will fall upon whatever road vehicles the railway companies put on the roads, so that they will be given no superiority over their rivals in the matter of easy terms. On the other hand they are being bound by certain conditions which no private motor owner at present is being subjected to. You start off with certain general conditions with regard to licences, the speed per hour, and with regard to certain types of vehicles. All that is common both to the ordinary road motor vehicle and those to be used by the railway companies. Outside that the ordinary private motor owner is free from restrictions. The railway company is being put in a freer position than it exists in at the moment, where it is entirely prohibited from the road.
It is given power to compete with the others, subject to these conditions: approval of routes, maximum charges, rates once charged not to be raised without the approval of the Minister, and a service once instituted not to be withdrawn without the approval of the Minister. They are onerous conditions, but are put in to prevent any monopoly accruing to the railway companies on account of their big financial resources, their terminals and their general services. I think it is a matter of most elementary justice that the railway companies should be given this right, particularly at a period when they are subject to such keen competition from road motor users, and if there is not sufficient safeguarding in this measure with regard to the thing that seems to be feared and ought to be protected against, that is the question of monopoly. I would be very satisfied to have any further checks pointed out which can, with reason, be put on the railway companies. I ask those who are afraid of monopoly to take into account and to look at the other side of the question, and that is, what position the railway companies will be put in in comparison with their rivals, having those conditions imposed upon them, and to see if the conditions imposed do not go as far as is practicable to remove the fear generally expressed with regard to monopoly.