Authority’s Competence In Bus Application Questioned

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27426, 12 August 1954, Page 9

Authority’s Competence In Bus Application Questioned

The Christchurch Transport Board’s application to run buses on the Cash-mere-Papanui route, in which extensions to Northcote are being opposed by Midland Motorways, Ltd., was considered in committee yesterday afternoon by Cr. J. E. Jones and Cr. N. R. Forbes of the Metropolitan Licensing Authority. They will consult the chairman (Mr R. M. Macfarlane, M.P.) who is in Wellington. Cr. F/C. Penfold announced that he would take no part in the decision.

This situation arose yesterday when the hearing, which had been adjourned from Monday, ended with addresses for interested parties. The competence of the authority in this case was questioned by Mr R. A. Young, representing Midland Motorways.

- Mr Young said that, with some reluctance, and without any intention to make the slightest reflection personally, he submitted that it was wrong for this case to be decided by an authority in which one member was also a member of the Transport Board and another was a former board employee. It was a maxim of British justice that justice should be done and also appear to be done, Mr Young said. The authority was in effect a court of law with wide powers and the principles which applied to the Supreme Court and the Magistrate’s Court should be observed. It would be unthinkable that a Magistrate with personal interests in a case would take a place on a judging tribunal. Cr. Forbes said, at this stage, that he would assure Mr Young that he was not an employee of the board. He also failed to see why Mr Penfold’s membership of the board should be raised. Mr Young had appeared before the authority in previous cases in which he was, an interested party. In any case the acting-chair-man (Cr. Jones) and he himself were independent, and the Mayor, who had presided on Monday when evidence was taken, would be consulted. Provisions in Transport Act Replying to Mr Young’s point, Mr J. F. Fardell, general manager of the Transport Board, said that although Section 86 of the Transport Act prohibited interested parties from hearing certain applications, Section 85 ruled that this aid not apply to metropolitan licensing authorities. Mr Fardell said he could see no difference in this case from Auckland where the Transport Board was also the Licensing Authority and other cities where civic licensing authorities considered their own municipal services. Mr Young replied that he had never appeared as an interested party except as counsel. It did seem that, in law, exceptions were allowed which covered the present situation, but

when the City Council had such a wide choice of members for appointment to the authority, in this case it would have been preferable to nominate men without direct interests. After the closing addresses for both parties, Cr. Penfold said he was not happy about the situation, and would take no part in the decision. In his summing up for Midland Motorways, Mr Young said that Section 102 and 103 of the Transport Act imposed the onus on the Transport Board to prove that its proposed new services were necessary and desirable. In fact the duplication of the Midland service to Northcote would render both services uneconomic. If Northcote was a new area, say like‘West Spreydon, ‘with no transport services, he concede that the board had a preference for entry as a public body, said Mr Young. However, the board had abandoned 20 years ago and lifted a single tramline which used to run from Papanui- to St. Bede’s College. Midland Motorways and its predecessors since built up an efficient and reliable service, and it would be morally wrong for the board to step in. Transport rating and licensing came under two separate acts, so the rating area question was not relevant.

Correcting a point in evidence, Mr Fardell said that the board’s buses, with 36 passengers, would be only 25cwt (not three tons) heavier than Midland buses at the same loading. Midland buses, through Northcote, were at their top weight, whereas the board’s buses would have “tail-end loading,” and be perhaps 2cwt lighter, so the question of comparable road damage was not important. Expansion to Kaiapoi Several of the witnesses for Midland Motorways had made much of fears that services to Belfast and Kaiapoi would’ be reduced if Midland Motorways lost Northcote business, Mr Fardell said. Such fears could be based only on information from Midland Motorways. Yet at the same time, the Mayor of Kaiapoi had described his town as fast-growing, with an even greater rate of expansion expected when sewerage was provided. Transport requirements must therefore increase, Mr Fardell said, and Midland services were more likely to expand than be reduced. Forty-six special trips a week to Northcote by Midland Motorways would involve 386 miles of running, said Mr Fardell, but the board’s extension would give 193 trips for only 308 miles of extra running. The nature of the Midland services were long and rural; the board’s services were suburban and local. The Tramway Act, 1920, entitled the board to operate buses in its own district, and the board felt it a duty to give service where required and practicable.