LONG DEBATE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 124, 27 May 1936, Page 10

LONG DEBATE.

TRANSPORT BILL. OPPOSITION ATTACK. POWERS OF THE MINISTER. IS METHOD DEMOCRATIC? (By Telegrapn.—Parliamentary Keporter.) WELLINGTON', Tuesday. Much of the ground that was covered last week when the Transport Licensing Amendment Bill was before the House of Representatives was traversed again in the House to-day on the motion for the third reading of the bill. At the outset urgency for the passage of the measure and also for the Shops and Offices Amendment Bill was taken on the motion of the deputy-Leader of the Government, Mr. Fraser. The third reading debate on the Transport Bill, however, was carried to unusual length. The first speaker was Mr. J. Hargest (National, Awarua), who said that in the Commitlee stages the Opposition had been able to secure a few amendments, and the bill had been materially improved, but there were still soih» clauses which were pernicious to a degree. The bill, he declared, was opposed to "everything 'hat had made nip New Zealand's character for the past hundred years.

Mr. C. H. Burnett (Government, Tauranga) created a surprise by expressing the opinio® that an appeal tribunal should be up instead of the Minister being constituted the final court of appeal.. ' f >5 Mr. W. J. Broadfoot (National, Waitomo) agreed that the Minister had made a mistake regarding the hearing of appeals. He declared that the people's rights were in jeopardy under the bill. Mr. W. T. Anderton (Government, Eden) asked who was better qualified than the Minister of Transport to deal with appeals. The Opposition had not given to the House any suggestions for a better way of-dealing with appeals. He believed that tne general co-ordina-tion of transport in the Dominion would, under the bill, be more successful than any system that had. preceded it. English M.P.'s Excluded. Mr. W. P.. Endean (National, Parnell) said that in England a member of Parliament was excluded from being,a member of any transport tribunal and he considered that that should be & basic principle in New Zealand. As a result .of private enterprise, said Mr. J. G. Barclay (Government, Marsden), there was cut throat competition in the transport business up and down the country. Taxi drivers were working from 14 to 18 hours a flay and making no more than relief workers. He' asked whether it was not sensible:and reasonable to bring these companies into cooperation with, one another. ' Mr. Coates (National, Kaipara): There is nothing.about that whatever. Mr. Barclay said that the Minister had the necessary power. Mr. Coates asked why the Opposition should sit down calmly and have Australian legislation imposed upon New Zealand. The Minister, he said,taking to himself complete dictatorial powers to deal with. ' appeals and appointments and was placing himself above all the courts of the land. Government members, would have to accept their share of the responsibility, but during the debate they had sat in their seats like so " many dilmb' dogs. Tie. present provisions iil the bill could not stand and before long the Minister would be calling upbn<,judges and magistrates to help give appeals a semblance of fair play. It was an outrageous bill, Mr. Coates continued, and was based on the Act that was passed by the Queensland Labour Government, but road transport conditions were a; thousand per cent better in New Zealand than in Queensland. The bill was retrograde, reactionary and contrary to the principles of British justice,. which was the most precious thing they coulfl preserve. Mr. Coates said there had been no effort to discount his assertion that the railways could not pay. if all transport revenue went into their coffers. "The Same Old Stuff." The Minister of Railways (Mr. Sullivan): I replied to you, but you just go on repeating the same old stuff. Mr. Coates: :■ I am' sorry if I am getting on the Minister's nerves. Mr. Sullivan said that Mr. Coates had so misinterpreted the intention of clause 15 as to leave a false impression regarding the whole structure of the bill. Mr. Coates had been almost beside himself in his attempt tn put the Minister of Transport off side. Mr. Sullivan reiterated his explanation of clause.ls. which he gave in the House last week. This was to the effect that the provision in the bill merely gave the Minister of Railways the right to protect a service which the Railway Department had bought. It was the people's money that was involved and he wanted security for the people's asset.

The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Forbes, said the Opposition had endeavoured to protect the rights of the public and the interests of men who were running private services in the Dominion. The whole policy of the Government was to have State services. Mr. Sullivan: 1 will accept that. Mr. Forbes 6aid the Opposition thought there was room for private enterprise, and it was the duty of the Opposition to see that the rights of private services could not be taken away without full knowledge of what was being done. The bill was loaded against private enterprise. The Attorney-General, Mr. Mason, said that the policy of the law was against appeals. Appeals in general favoured the man with the longest purse, and the law knew that. The law decided that litigation should be brought to finality. Mr. Forbes: That's not democratic. Mr. Mason: It is very democratic, because the rich man can go on appealing. Mr. Mason said that in England one could not appeal from the decision of a Minister, but there was provision for questioning a Minister's decision. As far as its merits were concerned there ivas no possibility of an appeal in England. Formal grounds would be used in New Zealand to defeat the interests of justice. Mr. K. J. Holyoake (National, Motueka) said that the assertion that the bill followed the English Act was merely a smoke screen. Mr. S. G. Smith (National, New Plymouth) said he wanted to know what precedent was there for a Minister to have power to make a decision that could not be checked or revoked by a court of law. Apologised For Minister. Sir Alfred Ransom (National, Pahiatua) said that the Attorney-General, in* an apologetic speech made on behalf of the Minister of Transport, had thrown justice to the four winds. Everyone engaged in transport had to obey the will of the Minister, without the right of appeal. Every argument the Attorney-General had put forward made things worse and had revealed the weakness of the Government's case. "No Government in the history of New Zealand had so flagrantly disregarded the will of the people as the last Government," declared Mr. H. Atmore (Independent, Nelson). The past Government had been trying to keep the people down through boards representing its own particular side of politics, and that largely accounted for the revolt of the people at the general electiqn. The Opposition believed in the dictatorship of party, but the Government believed in democratic principles translated into action.