Road Carriers Oppose Railways’ Application

Press, Volume C, Issue 29630, 28 September 1961, Page 3

Road Carriers Oppose Railways’ Application

An application described as the first made by the Railways Department to imjfrove its road transport service, was widely opposed when it came before the No. 9 District Transport Licensing Authority <Mr J. S. Haywood) yesterday. The Minister of Railways, represented by Mr L. C. Brown asked for the deletion of special conditions affecting two goods licences and 24 vehicle authorities operating in the district. The restrictions now prevent the trucks from unloading goods between railway premises. Eight branches of the New Zealand Road Transport Alliance, the Christchurch and Suburban Carriers’ Association, and the Timaru Master Carriers’ Association opposed the application. Branches of the Alliance were WaiparaAmuri and Cheviot, Rangiora. Christchurch. Banks Peninsula. Ellesmere-Mal-vern, Ashburton, South Canterbury and Waimate. The objectors were represented by Mr R. A. Young. The case was ■ adjourned after Mr Young had opened the case for the objectors. Evidence For Appellant

Basil Douglas Elder, a commercial agent on the staff of the General Manager of Railways, Wellington, said the applications were designed to give improved service to customers in country areas. The amendments would also enable the services to operate more efficiently and economically, he said. “My department is fully conscious of the necessity to improve the efficiency of its services, particularly in the South Island, where the operating loss for the year ended March 31 was £1.986,695,” the witness said. The department wanted to be freed of irksome and unnecessary restrictions. These were, in fact. Invalidated when goods-services licences were extended to' cover the whole of a transport district and made subject only to railways restriction legislation.

The witness said alterations to transport, licensing regulations had caused a flow of business from rail to road Mr P. P. Geddes, divisional officer at the General Manager’s office, said the amendments would “end those silly things” such as taking goods by road to a shed and having a shop-owner from two chains away collect them in a wheelbarrow.

He said the Department had asked for special rights to unload goods en route only seven times in seven years because of unreasonable objection from local carriers. The department had no in. tention of extending its services to compete with private carriers, Mr Young said that in an appeal before Judge Archer in 1948 the department gave it» assurance that it would not use the shed-to-shed service as a ground for extending operations to compete with other carriers.

“Invasion” "f granted, the amendments would allow the department to invade the field of other operators. The list of objectors was a clear indication of the carriers* concern. i -

“Possibly no other application in the history of transport licensing has been re. ceived as seriously as this one,” Mr Young said.

The Minister, although protected as a rail operator, \fras not protected as a road operator, he said. The department was in the same legal position as any other licensed operator seeking an amendment. The amendments were unacceptable to carriers in spite of assurances that the new rights would be used in moderation, Mr Young said. Although the department might not intend doing so in the near future, it would nevertheless have the right to operate anywhere in the No. 9 district. Applications Allowed

John Brightling, Ltd., of 213 Lichfield street, Christchurch, was granted the addition of three vehicle authorities for the carriage of general goods. The applicant was represented by Mr H. W. Hunter. Mr J. B. Connor, for the Christchurch and Subur. ban Carriers’ Association, opposed the application. Stevensons Motors, Ltd., Sheffield, successfully applied for the deletion of a special condition restricting one vehicle authority to seasonal use. The firm was allowed to carry general goods under the authority. Mr Hunter appeared for the applicant.