TRANSPORT ACT.

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 20916, 25 July 1933, Page 18

TRANSPORT ACT.

PROTECTION OF RAILWAYS DENIED. JUDGMENT OF APPEAL BOARD. Strong disagreement with any view that the Transport Licensing Act, 1931, is designed to protect railways and either eliminate or curtail motor services is expressed in a judgment of the Transport Appeal Board, delivered through Mr Justice Frazer. "The title indicates the underlying object of the legislation, which is the control and regulation of commercial load transport services," the judgment reads. "It has within recent years been the experience of nearly every country in the world that motor services for the carriage of passengers and of goods have entered into destructive competition with railways and tramways and with one another. "Competition is often spoken of as a necessary stimulant to business and as something to be encouraged, without restriction, for the public benefit. Generally speaking, this view is correct, but it has its exceptions. One exception is the case of a public utility such as transport. "The Transport Licensing' Act requires a licensing authority to consider generally: (a) the extent to which a proposed service is necessary or desirable in the public interest, and (b) the needs of the district or districts as a whole in relation to passenger transport, and, if it is then of opinion that a proposed service is unnecessary or undesirable, to refuse to grant a license. The Object of the Act. "The act is not designed to give railways and tramways an absolute monopoly of passenger transport. Its object is to control and regulate, not to prohibit, commercial motor services. Naturally, full consideration must be given to the effect of the licensing of an undue number of motor services on the public revenue and on the continued existence, in an efficient condition, of a railway system that is essential for the needs of the Dominion. "There appears to be a very definite idea in some quarters that the act has been specially designed for the protection of the railways and the consequent elimination, or at least curtailment, of motor services that are in any way in competition therewith. We cannot too strongly express our entire disagreement with this view of the intention of the act. "It is unfortunate that there has been a tendency in this country to develop motor transport services along routes paralleling the railway routes, instead of along routes not served by the railways. In our opinion, there is room for commercial motor services, and we are satisfied that the purpose of the legislature, as expressed in the act, is to define their sphere, and so to bring about the elimination of wasteful, destructive, and uneconomic competition." RENEWAL OF LICENSES. SIGHT OF APPEAL UPHELD. A decision of special importance dealing with the licensing of motor transport services has been given by the Transport Appeal Board in the matter of an appeal by the Government Railways Board against the action of the No. 5 Transport Authority in granting the renewal of an "automatic" license to Hodson's Motor Services, operating in the Wanganui district. • The decision upheld the right of appeal, the respondent contending that an "automatic" license must be renewed in toto from year to year, and that its conditions could not be altered unless the licensee made application or the licensing authority acted on its own volition. The decision is the first that has been delivered by the Appeal Board since the expiration of the initial period of automatic licensing.

The Case Stated. In giving judgment, Mr Justice •erazer said it was submitted for the respondent company that the appellant board had no right of appeal, for the reason that a licensing authority could not, when dealing with an application xor a renewal of a passenger-service license, alter the terms and conditions of the original license without having first given to the licensee seven days' notice as required by section 34. Counsel had argued that as no notice f!? no amendment of the terms and conditions of the license made by the licensing authorial be no Sround of apf- that the appellant board's application must be regarded as a belated appeal against the terms and conditions of the original license and must accordingly be dismissed. Section 34 provided that a licensing authority during the currency of a passenger-service license, might of its own motion or on the application of the licensee, and upon seven days' notice to all persons likely to be affected thereby, amend or revoke any of the terms or conditions of the license. It was to be noted that only the licensing authority and the licensee were empowered to proceed under this section. at l from pe P° wer of amendment »™, b y se . c txon 34, the terms and conditions of the license could not be varied during its currency. It was that section enabled amendments to be made in the public fif i* or benefit of a • licensee was safeguarded SadL t^ g th« a^ Ssed - by applications She? pefU,; " UU " ,r " y by , Counsel's Contention. ! Counsel's contention was that a re- * ji. licen .se merely extended the °?i g V? aI license , and that no appeal could lie m respect of any of the terms and conditions of a renewed license unless the terms and conditions of the original license had oeen amended in accordance with the provisions of section 34. In the present case no material amendment had been made. ' » I( V wa „ s interesting to note the full effect of Mr Dickson's contention, which really amounts to this: That when an 'automatic' license had been granted under section 28 (3), it must if renewed from year to year, be renewed in toto, and the terms and conditions of the original license could not be altered, unless the licensee made application in that behalf or the licensing authority decided to act of its own motion. "It has been held by this board," his Honour said, "that an 'automatic' license, while subject to the provisions of section 30, cannot be materially restricted in its scope by conditions prescribed under that section, for to do so would involve taking away, by means of restrictive conditions, the right to operate the service, or substantially the t9« ei 7^ e ' in r <L s Pect of which section 28 (3) provides that an 'automatic license shall be granted. It follows, then, if Mr Dickson's contention is sound, that no competitor and no public body have at any time to right to apply for an amendment of the terms and conditions of a license, even though that license may have been, by virtue of section 28 ( P: panted practically without restrictions for its original term, and although the absence of restrictions may be detrimental to the public interest and damaging to competitors." Baais of Decision, The soundness of counsel's argument depended on whether the renewal of a license was a grant of an entirely new license or a mere extension of the term of an expired or expiring license, his Honour said. Scc-

I (Continued in fast column.) 1