"RESTRICTION OF RIGHTS."

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 241, 11 October 1929, Page 9

"RESTRICTION OF RIGHTS."

MASTER CARRIERS' OPINION.

REPRESENTATION INSUFFICIENT.

"As a general rule legislation means further restriction of the rights of individuals, and the Transport Amendment Bill is no exception.",

This announcement is, made by the New Zealand Master Carriers'-Federatipn ijin a statement juet released; "as repre--1 senting the views of the commercial vehicle owners of the Dominion.

"The federation," it is added, "recognises the need of a comprehensive policy of regulating motor transport in the interests of economic safety and pro-: gress, and, believing that the Transport Bill repreeant's an honest endeavour on the part of the Government to place motor transport on a sound economic basis, it approves the bill generally. At the same time, the proposed constitution of the Main Highways Board is not considered to be satisfactory, inasmuch as the vehicle owners, comprising both commercial vehicle . owners and , motorists, have been given one representative only for each, island. The commercial vehicle owners will not- be satisfied to be represented by a motorist and.it is safe to assume that the motorists will' not be satisfied to be represented by a commercial vehicle owner. The commercial vehicle owners pay approxi-. mately £700,000 per annum by. way of special road taxation, the greater part of which goes into the Highways Boar.l fund. It follows then that the commercial vehicle owners are entitled to direct representation on the Main Highways Board.

Transfer of Licensing Authority.

"One of the principal features of the bill,which meets with the approval ot the commercial vehicle owners is that provision which removes the power to license transport services from the hands of local bodies and places it in the hands of a.special tribunal. The existing eystem whereby a local' body conducting

transport services can exercise '.its I licensing powers in respect of competitive services in such a manner" as to create for-itself a monopoly of public transport, ie one which cannot be defended, and, incidentally, one which has been tne euDject of condemnation by a Supreme Court judge. The manner in \vhieh one licensing authority in particular, has exercised its powers to grant or refuse licenses is, in itself, sufficient to justify the .-proposal in the bill to appoint special licensing authorities. .. ■••Another provision of the bill which must commend itself to all fair-minded people is the one which provides for the payment of goodwill to private enterprise whose services may be acquired by the State or a local body. It is not right that a person should be deprived of the fruits of hie labour, after having devoted his capital and energy to pioneering a transport service. Surely it is not right that a local body should be able to step in as soon as the service becomes prolitable, and acquire the service without compensating the owner for goodwill. That would amount to nothing short of confiscation, and yet the local bodies seek that right. To provide for that to be done would deter private enterprise I from pioneering services, and yet it is a fact that in a large number of cases services have been pioneered by private enterprise only after a local body has declined to undertake it. Uniform Regulations. Still another commendable feature of the bill is the effort being made under it to bring about uniform regulation of motor transport throughout the Dominion. At the present time, each one of a multitude of local bodies makes its own by-laws regulating motor transport and grave dissatisfaction amongst vehicle owners has arisen in consequence. The manner in which some local bodies are legislating in respect of motor transport and the manner in which some of them are administering statutory provisions relating to motor transport, render immediately necessary some legislation directed towards securing uniformity throughout the Dominion. ■ . "Hitherto, the Dominion has been without any definite policy in transport matters. Chaos has resulted. To the commercial vehicle owners, the Transport Bill appears to be a step in the direction of putting into effect a definite transport policy, without which chaos will continue, it would be folly if the Government were to delay one day longer than necessary the enactment of a measure designed to regulate motor transport in the interests of progress. "Although the bill now before the House contains machinery for eliminating uneconomic goods transport, commercial vehicle owners are obliged to admit that if regulation is essential to eliminate waste the Government is justified in proceeding with the bill. If there are reasonable grounds for believing that the bill is a etep in that direction, the I Government and each individual member of Parliament will fail in their duty if they oppose its passage. For these reasons, the commercial vehick owners desire to see the bill passed in its oresent form, subject to a reconstitution of the Main Highways Board ill the ! direction of giving equitable separate representation to the commercial vehicle owners and motorists." .