TRANSPORT ACT

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21258, 1 September 1934, Page 12

TRANSPORT ACT

Hearing of Appeals By Board NELSON CITY COUNCIL'S STRONG PROTEST (SI'JICtAL TO THE rftS3S.) NELSON, August 31. The Nelson City Council passed a motion recording an emphatic pro test against the two sections of the Transport Act which govern appeals. Councillor S. H. Moynagh moved: "That the Council records a most emphatic protest against the provisions contained in section 17, subsections 2 and 3, of the Transport Law Amendment Act, 1933, which are as follows:—'Sub-section 2: All appeals duly lodged but not determined before the passing of this act shall be determined by the Transport Co-ordination Board, and shall be heard and determined notwithstanding that any member of the board may have been a member of any licensing authority against whose decision the appeal was lodged; sub-section 3: The board, in determining any appeal, shall not be bound to hear any person or to take any evidence or to receive any representations from any person.' "That in our opinion the provisions of these sub-sections constitute an outrage against the principle of British natural justice. The proviso enabling the Appeal Board to hear an appeal without hearing him or his witnesses or his advocate constitutes a menace to the rights of the subject, and is an innovation tending to impair British constitutional procedure, which up to now has been the envy of the world. "That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Prime Minister, the leader of the Opposition, and parliamentary representatives with a request to have these obnoxious provisions repealed; and that a copy be forwarded to every public body in the Dominion and to the secretary of every district law society, requesting each body to support the demand that amending legislation be introduced in the present session of parliament lor this purpose." "By these two miserable sections, the whole system of British procedure is whittled down. The procedure of the Star Chamber is only an echo compared with it. It is flic most iniquitous piece of legislation I have ever heard of," said Cr. Movnagh. The Mayor CMr W. J. MotTatt;: Regardless of criticism, I'm going to support it. He said, he would like the attention of the whole of the people in the Dominion drawn to this. Whether it was a case of a local body expressing an opinion on general politics or not, it was the duly of the council to express an opinion on such a matter, and he had no doubt that it would be supported by all who had a sense of British justice. The sections were a breach of British constitutional procedure. The motion was passed.