TRANSPORT CONTROL.

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 260, 3 November 1931, Page 15

TRANSPORT CONTROL.

AMENDED LICENSING BILL.

MR. COATES' EXPLANATIONS

"FIRST MEASURE WENT TOO FAR."

(By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.)

WELLINGTON, Monday.

The amended Transport Licensing Bill was introduced in the House of Representatives to-night by Governor-General's Message. The Rt. Hon. J., G. Coates, Minister of Transport, explained tliatj the principles of the measure remained the same. The main change was that i the four metropolitan licensing authorities remained unaltered. Tlie Auckland Transport Board, Wellington City, Christehurch City and Dunedin City would he the licensing authorities for those areas. f

Mr. W. A. Veitch (former Minister of Transport: That will spoil the whole thing.

"i do not think so,'' replied Mr. Coates. The bill, lie said, carried on tlie Motor Omnibus Act, and in addition to the former legislation would allow the Kailway Board as one transport industry to apply for consideration and make appeals. It could do so, for instance, on the ground tliat traffic would be most economically and efficiently provided for by rail, '.there was an appeal board o\er and above the local licensing authorities.

Mr. J. McCombs (Labour, Lyttclton): The Auckland Transport Board is a licensing authority. Wny not the Cliristchurch Tramways Board, an exactly similar organisation? ,

Mr. Coates suggested that the questioner consult tjiis Cliristchurch colleagues, for he was quite agreeable if they had. no objections. Licensing authorities would continue their former work, as it was inadvisable to duplicate powers. However, the Minister of Transport would take power to extend their authority if necessary. Applications would not go to the Commissioner of Transport as in the former bill, but direct to the local licensing authority.

The Minister, referring to the pirate motor vehicles, remarked that as soon as the bill passed tlicy would automatically go out, as thy would be breaking the law relating to the penal bus fare.

Mr. McCombs asked if the bill still provided that motor buses should charge the penal fare of twopence if they were competing with the tramway service. Mi*. Coates replied that he thought there were sufficient powers already in the Omnibus Act, and he thought that penal fares had never beeh availed of. • "They have been in operation in Cliristchurch," replied Mr. McCombs, "and it would be serious to do away with them." . , Mr. Coates added that as the original bill was drafted it was possible to charge an extra 2d penal fare on passengers within a quarter of a mile of the tramway authority's area if they came into direct competition. A motor bus could pick up a passenger outside the boundary and go straight into Cathedral Square, for instance. The Minister concluded by stating that the original bill went a little too far in giving licensing authorities power to interfere with the function of local bodies, such as fixing parking places for buses. He regarded it as entirely a matter for the local authorities to deal with such affairs as the classification of roads. There would be 13 licensing authorities in the Dominion, corresponding approximately to highway districts, and also a central coordinating authority dealing with traffic licensed to travel through morte than one district.