PARLIAMENT TRANSPORT BILL

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26266, 10 November 1950, Page 8

PARLIAMENT TRANSPORT BILL

ALLEGATIONS MADE BY OPPOSITION

REFERENCES TO MR SIM AND COURT CASE

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, November 9. Protests against the intAduction ol retrospective legislation and allegations that it had been included in the Transport Amendment Bill on the representations of the president of tne National Party <Mr W. J. Sim. K.C.) were made by Oppgsition members in the House of Representatives to-day, when the measure was discussed in the committee stages. Mr F. Hackett (Opposition, Grey Lynn) said that Mr Sim’s influence had been used to include a provision in the bill which not only would frustrate the course of justice in the Supreme Court but would prevent an action being brought to the Supreme Court.

Mr Hackett was ordered by the Chairman of Committees (Mr C. G. Harker) to withdraw that reference, and he did so. He then said that representations had been made to the Government to have the retrospective clause included in the bill, and those representations were made by Mr

It w-as a terrible thing, he said, when the laws of the country and the legislators allowed themselves to be used as tools. He said that the clause providing that proceedings before metropolitan authorities are not to be questioned except before the Licensing Appeal Authority would assist Mr Sim either to win a case or prevent it going to the Supreme Court. Minister of External Affairs (Mr F. W. Doidge): Utterly preposterous. Mr Hackett said that there had been 8 long del?y in a case involving the question of taxi licences in Wellington. and that the bill itself had been before the committee for consideration for three weeks because Mr Sim's was before the Supreme Court in Wellington.

"Perfectly Justified" The Minister of Transport (Mr W S Goosman) said that the Transport Department wanted the clause included in the bill, although representations had been made by the lawyer on the other side to have it taken out. 'The Minister said he considered the clause was perfectly justified. He reviewed the history of the granting of more taxi licences in Wellington and said that when a case W’ e nt to the Transport Appeal Authority the licences already issued were not only upheld but the Judge granted two extra licences. There was a technicality involved which formed the basis of a case to keep former servicemen taxi-drivers off the road. The Minister said he did not believe in retrospective legislation as a general rule, but in this case such legislation was justified. The charges against Mr Sim were groundless continued Mr Gflbsman, and he had never discussed the leeisthe House with him r M bCombs (Opposition, Lyttelton): Its odd that it should help

Mr S. W. Smith (Government Hobsenv'es.They Udge others b * them-

Mr Goosman said that at present a^, .u e 9‘jj ty were h®*"’ frustrated, and that fact gave further justification for the clause. He would take full responsibility for it, and he would stard by it. ■ , G ' , R - Mason (Opposition, waitakere) said that the clause would take the case out of the hands of the Supreme Court, where it had been brought on the ground that the LicenslngAuthority had been prejudiced. The Attorney General (Mr T. C. Webb) said that Mr Sim had not come into any discussion on the clause at all Mr Webb said that the Wellington City Council’s committee had decided to grant more taxi licences, but the existing taxi people had "ganged up" because they wanted to nurse the partial monopoly they had. The Minister said he was not going to see former servicemen deprived of taxi licences and the people of the city deprived of taxis they needed. Mr Saggested Mr McCombs said that as the taxi licences which were in dispute had been issued it was reasonable for the Government to withdraw the clause ■nd to place on the table of the House clause e concern * n S the retrospective

hidf 1 " sman: I have nothing to

Mr McCombs asked whether any conversations about the clause would be included in the file. He said there must have been some approach made to the Government to have the clause included in the bill. He said he had noticed Mr Sim in the House some time ago watching the second-reading debate on the bill. That was rather a coincidence. It would save a lot of trouble if the Government withdrew tne retrospective clause, as a recent decision of the Supreme Court made it unnecessary. Mr Webb agreed that there was now no longer the need for the retrospective provision. ■ He reiterated that Mr Sim had nothing whatever to do with the clause, he had never seen him. and he did not know that he was concerned with the Court proceedings. I don t want to att'ek a man from the floor of the House," continued Mr Webb, “but Mr R. E. Harding attacked me in the Supreme Court by an affidavit he had filed and accused Mr Sim of approaching me on the bill He had to withdraw it. Mr Hayd ns was assuming that Mr Sim was trying to influence me. I would like to tell Mr Harding that he was doing exactly the same. He should not judge oth~r people by himself, because his stand wg is too low.”/ Mr R. Macdonald (Opposition, Ponaonby): Go outside and say it. Blr C. Lu Carr (Opposition, Timaru): That s beneath the dignity of the Attorney-General. Mr Webb: Mr Harding did see me. He tried to persuade me to take the clause out of the bill I was very reluctant to do so. Mr Goosman said he would accept the advice of the Attorney-General •nd withdraw the retrospective u x Goosman said that after it was decided by the Wellington City

Council in October, 1948. that addi- I tional licences were necessary there | was a delay of ’wo years until last , week. Mr Justic Hay ordered that ' temporary licences should be issued, i There was now less justification for the retrospective c’ause than at the time the bill was drafted.

The Minister Assistant to the Prime Minister (Mr J. R. Marshall) said that the parties to the case had consented j to the issue of temporary licences i only because of the existence of tt*e retrospective clase in the bill. The Government was prepared to go all the way and would not have agreed to withdraw the retrospective clause had that consent not been given. The bill was then put through committee, the retrospective clause being deleted, and the bill was passed. I