As to the point that has been made with regard to the standard charges, again I shall have to postpone a full answer to that until the main Vote for the Department comes up, because it would be difficult to give in a concise way just what the full effect of the decision in the Court was, at least, if it is to be brought into its context and associated with all the matters that the public will want to know. I can state roughly what were the contentions of my own Department in the interests of the community before the Railway Tribunal and I can say what the Railway Tribunal declared, and it seems to me that the judgement of the Court in acknowledging what the railway company desires is easy enough to understand. I cannot speak of that at all unless I give it in its context and give a concise statement. The phrase that the Deputy queried I think is easily understandable. It is that standard charges were not designed to bring in the standard revenue. The Department's plea was —but this must be taken with many reservations—that standard charges ought to be actual charges. The aim was to get away from exceptional charges. The railway company's contention was that standard charges should be maximum charges. They envisage a state of things in which possibly no single standard charge would, in fact, be the charge throughout the country. Having got a decision that standard charges need not be actual charges, it is clear that standard charges are not designed to bring in the standard revenue. There will be variations up and down. The railway company suggested that the standard charges represented maxima to which they believe it will never be necessary to go. I shall leave it at that. A better explanation can be given on the main Vote.
As to the Tribunal, I thought it would be possible to have the question of standard charges determined sooner, and that the life of the Tribunal might be brought to an end, so far as the three members of it were concerned, but it was afterwards recognised that other matters there would have to be cleared. For instance, the question of the singling of lines occupied greater attention and a greater part of the time of the Tribunal than we thought possible at the time. Once they were carried forward, as a Tribunal of three it was thought better to reappoint them. It does seem that in any new traffic rearrangements in contemplation, even arising under the very Bill that Deputy Cassidy is so anxious about, the Railway Tribunal, possibly with enlarged powers, might play a part. And as they had work to occupy them at the moment it was considered advisable to keep the body of three members in existence. If the Deputy wants further details of their work, I shall try to get them for him. But, again, I would like to keep that body, as an independent body, at arm's length outside Government control, and I would have to get a definite statement from them as to what occupies them. I can, for my own Department, say what work the Department brings before the Tribunal, and in that way show some of the matter that comes before them. But it would not be fair to indicate that that is, as it were, all the work they do. If there are any matters of public interest to the Deputy I shall get the particulars for him.
